|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Mar 9, 2022 19:28:10 GMT
Things don't happen overnight. You are making excuses. Russia has not occupied the entirety of Ukraine. Putin is just not satisfied with the crumbs he is given. He wants the whole pie. They will never get it... Its odd too...or actually ironic... They champion this idea of freedom and liberty - calls themselves libertarian...yet they are literally championing enslaving people to avoid conflict... and you and I wads are typically at opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues...and here we are aligned It seems we both understand something jack nicholsons character in the departed said - no one gives it to you, you have to take it... Most every populace throughout the history of the world that was enslaved or under the thumb of some authoritarian and eventually became free, was never just granted freedom...they had to fight for it, literally or figuratively.... the ukranian people lived for decades under brutal authoritarian rule...many still alive and remember what it was like...since 1991 they've had a taste of freedom and they have been devouring it....and now they see it all slipping away... so they are fighting for their freedom... and they very may well lose this battle, be killed and their cities destroyed fighting for it....but that is what they want. And in the long term, over the next 25 years, I suspect Russia's world reputation has been so damaged beyond repair, that someday they will regain their country and their freedom I can see these so called libertarians telling people in different eras - slaves, women, blacks, jews etc - just sit back and take it, you'll avoid any conflict... easy to say when you are sitting as a free citizen...
LOL. Part of fighting for freedom is not running in to almost certain death when there are other options.
An analogy I would use is someone wrongfully arrested/pulled over/etc.
If you know you've not broken the law, you have two basic options.
1) Follow the instructions of the officers, get legal representation if necessary, use the justice system to prove yourself innocent and seek any possible restitution.
2) Fight the officer.
The first option, you live to clear your name. The second option, there's a pretty good chance you die. And best case scenario you mess your life up forever and probably go to prison.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 9, 2022 19:44:58 GMT
If he does not want complete occupation, then he would not be invading the complete country. He hasn't invaded "the complete country," and it's not clear that he wants to if you look at the map and how this invasion has progressed thus far. If that was his goal, he wouldn't be offering negotiations and setting terms. In fact, a complete invasion and occupation is probably something he would like to avoid, because it would be very costly (not even counting the sanctions which would continue). Where have I made the assertion that Putin is trustworthy? No state is trustworthy (see how many agreements we break). That doesn't mean you don't negotiate. What it does mean is that you try to ensure means that the terms are respected. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 1:11:34 GMT
If he does not want complete occupation, then he would not be invading the complete country. He hasn't invaded "the complete country," and it's not clear that he wants to if you look at the map and how this invasion has progressed thus far. If that was his goal, he wouldn't be offering negotiations and setting terms. In fact, a complete invasion and occupation is probably something he would like to avoid, because it would be very costly (not even counting the sanctions which would continue). Where have I made the assertion that Putin is trustworthy? No state is trustworthy (see how many agreements we break). That doesn't mean you don't negotiate. What it does mean is that you try to ensure means that the terms are respected. Why negotiate with someone that is not trustworthy. Now you are not making sense |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Mar 10, 2022 6:53:25 GMT
At this point I think the US should negotiate directly with Russia.
We can offer a treaty something like this:
The US will not support, endorse, or vote in favor of Ukraine membership to NATO which effectively cuts off NATO membership for Ukraine. The US will not place weapons in or send weapons to Ukraine. The US will not have troops or military "advisors" in Ukraine. The US will recognize Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine as either being independent or Russian territory. In exchange Russia would immediately cease aggressive military operations, withdraw it's forces, and recognize the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government. All sanctions would be eliminated once the Russian forces have left the country.
I suspect something like that could be worked out if we actually tried.
The Ukrainians can proudly say they never surrendered and bravely stood against the evil Russians and the Russians keep NATO out of Ukraine and get official recognition of territory they've already controlled for nearly a decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Mar 10, 2022 12:36:15 GMT
At this point I think the US should negotiate directly with Russia. We can offer a treaty something like this: The US will not support, endorse, or vote in favor of Ukraine membership to NATO which effectively cuts off NATO membership for Ukraine. The US will not place weapons in or send weapons to Ukraine. The US will not have troops or military "advisors" in Ukraine. The US will recognize Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine as either being independent or Russian territory. In exchange Russia would immediately cease aggressive military operations, withdraw it's forces, and recognize the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government. All sanctions would be eliminated once the Russian forces have left the country. I suspect something like that could be worked out if we actually tried. The Ukrainians can proudly say they never surrendered and bravely stood against the evil Russians and the Russians keep NATO out of Ukraine and get official recognition of territory they've already controlled for nearly a decade. Add in a full military alliance should Russia attack Ukraine, full restitution of all infrastructure damage, compensation by Russia for those injured, traumatised or bereaved, compensation for lost business, and payment by Russia for the costs of ICC investigations in to Russian war crimes, and full co-operation with the ICC. And committment to demilitarise the disputed areas, cease any covert or open support for separatists, anx stop propaganda operations. And repay Ukrainian costs for fuel, ammunition and expended weaponry. And apologise. |
|
|
|
Post by wyattstorch on Mar 10, 2022 13:34:34 GMT
At this point I think the US should negotiate directly with Russia. We can offer a treaty something like this: The US will not support, endorse, or vote in favor of Ukraine membership to NATO which effectively cuts off NATO membership for Ukraine. The US will not place weapons in or send weapons to Ukraine. The US will not have troops or military "advisors" in Ukraine. The US will recognize Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine as either being independent or Russian territory. In exchange Russia would immediately cease aggressive military operations, withdraw it's forces, and recognize the legitimacy of the current Ukrainian government. All sanctions would be eliminated once the Russian forces have left the country. I suspect something like that could be worked out if we actually tried. The Ukrainians can proudly say they never surrendered and bravely stood against the evil Russians and the Russians keep NATO out of Ukraine and get official recognition of territory they've already controlled for nearly a decade. Add in a full military alliance should Russia attack Ukraine, full restitution of all infrastructure damage, compensation by Russia for those injured, traumatised or bereaved, compensation for lost business, and payment by Russia for the costs of ICC investigations in to Russian war crimes, and full co-operation with the ICC. And committment to demilitarise the disputed areas, cease any covert or open support for separatists, anx stop propaganda operations. And repay Ukrainian costs for fuel, ammunition and expended weaponry. And apologise.
I can get on board with the first part of this, as any agreement has to have something powerful to enforce it or the same thing may happen again.
But you are asking them to admit fault and apologize and I doubt they will go along with that. And is it really worth missing a deal for peace for some symbolic apology they don't really mean?
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 14:28:30 GMT
Why negotiate with someone that is not trustworthy. Now you are not making sense Why do people negotiate with us? Iran is right now. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 14:43:14 GMT
Why negotiate with someone that is not trustworthy. Now you are not making sense Why do people negotiate with us? Iran is right now. Why? Well, Obama was trustworthy. Unfortunately, trump was a fool. Shit happens. Which is not at all the same as Putin and Ukraine. To compare the two is foolish. Putin is known to be a liar, a terrorist and a murderer. Who would negotiate with someone like that? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 14:52:19 GMT
Well, Obama was trustworthy. Gaddafi could not be reached for comment. If Putin wasn't in office, Russia would still have issues with Ukraine and might even invade (Yeltsin sent troops to Moldova and fought a war in Chechnya), because states' security interests are usually long standing, not just whims. You negotiate because it's in your interest to do so (might not even have any other choice), whether or not the other party is completely trustworthy. If you don't completely trust them, you look for ways to guarantee that they will uphold their end of the deal. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 15:21:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 15:29:18 GMT
Well, Obama was trustworthy. Gaddafi could not be reached for comment. If Putin wasn't in office, Russia would still have issues with Ukraine and might even invade (Yeltsin sent troops to Moldova and fought a war in Chechnya), because states' security interests are usually long standing, not just whims. You negotiate because it's in your interest to do so (might not even have any other choice), whether or not the other party is completely trustworthy. If you don't completely trust them, you look for ways to guarantee that they will uphold their end of the deal. You are not sure of any of that. If that were true, then Putin would not be feeding his people misinformation about what is going on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2022 15:30:47 GMT
I saw this morning this was being framed as a "pullback" by Putin. But I haven't seen "overthrowing Ukraine's government" as a Russian aim anywhere except in Western press wildly speculating about Putin reconstituting the USSR. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but adding the PM condition seemed a ramping up from the first demands for surrender on the day of invasion as per NBC.
Ironically, this is something the Western press did to Trump a ... lot. And the destruction it wrought on our country that we still haven't worked through and probly won't is why I do not think the US can dare involve itself in the Ukraine/Russia border disputes.
Notice the link to "begun to state" ... but no link in the "When Russia's invasion of Ukraine began two weeks ago, overthrowing its government and installing a Russian-friendly puppet regime was very much the goal. " part.
This is the exact reporting style that led 2019's reality to be based on 2018's opinions, etc etc going back that makes it so hard to deprogram a leftist today.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 15:31:41 GMT
You are not sure of any of that. If that were true, then Putin would not be feeding his people misinformation about what is going on. Not sure about what? Russia's security interests? Pretty sure about those since they have been consistently expressing the same concerns for 30 years. You can read the transcripts of their discussions with U.S. Presidents. You can look at their actions of the past 30 years. And you can look at their public comments. All those line up. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 15:33:23 GMT
You are not sure of any of that. If that were true, then Putin would not be feeding his people misinformation about what is going on. Not sure about what? Russia's security interests? Pretty sure about those since they have been consistently expressing the same concerns for 30 years. You can read the transcripts of their discussions with U.S. Presidents. You can look at their actions of the past 30 years. And you can look at their public comments. All those line up. Line up to what? Putin thinks Ukraine belongs to Russia? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 15:50:54 GMT
I saw this morning this was being framed as a "pullback" by Putin. But I haven't seen "overthrowing Ukraine's government" as a Russian aim anywhere except in Western press wildly speculating about Putin reconstituting the USSR. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but adding the PM condition seemed a ramping up from the first demands for surrender on the day of invasion as per NBC. The Prime Minister ask has only been in one set of demands that I've seen. That's been dropped from the latest terms. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 15:51:57 GMT
All those statements and actions line up, i.e., they're consistent. Have been for 30 years. And when Putin is gone, those same concerns are going to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 16:57:32 GMT
All those statements and actions line up, i.e., they're consistent. Have been for 30 years. And when Putin is gone, those same concerns are going to exist. LOL, nothing about Putin is consistent except that he is a power hungry fool. His people are living like pulpers while he is considered the riches men in the world. But continue to believe what you want. Putin is mad because trump couldn't convince Ukraine to get dirt on Biden and his son Hunter. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Mar 10, 2022 17:00:24 GMT
LOL, nothing about Putin is consistent except that he is a power hungry fool. Then you're purposefully ignoring quite a bit. This is the type of partisan nonsense that leads y'all to ignore their actual issues (see also petep blaming Biden for the invasion). |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Mar 10, 2022 17:13:34 GMT
LOL, nothing about Putin is consistent except that he is a power hungry fool. Then you're purposefully ignoring quite a bit. This is the type of partisan nonsense that leads y'all to ignore their actual issues (see also petep blaming Biden for the invasion). I am not ignoring the fact that you condone the Putin war because you think the west has done bad things to him. You are acting like a pro Putin bitch |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2022 17:15:23 GMT
I saw this morning this was being framed as a "pullback" by Putin. But I haven't seen "overthrowing Ukraine's government" as a Russian aim anywhere except in Western press wildly speculating about Putin reconstituting the USSR. Correct me if I'm wrong ... but adding the PM condition seemed a ramping up from the first demands for surrender on the day of invasion as per NBC. The Prime Minister ask has only been in one set of demands that I've seen. That's been dropped from the latest terms.
Yeah my watching this issue has been ...
baseline on day one NBC reporting 1- Commit to neutrality and remove the "we will join NATO" language from Ukrainian constitution. 2- Cede Crimea to Russia. 3- Recognize the independence of Eastern separatist regions.
Then it went to 1- Commit to neutrality and remove the "we will join NATO" language from Ukrainian constitution. 2- Cede Crimea to Russia. 3- Recognize the independence of Eastern separatist regions. And 4- Russia appoints a PM to govern with Zelenskyy.
Now it's back to initial demands ... and journalists are calling it "Plan B." Or "Putin acknowledging he can't win this war" in some of the more extreme articles I've seen. I think WaPo link I saw in middle of last night.
^^ That shit is why the enemy actually is the enemy of the people. They're more interested in giving their fearmongering and histrionics and profit seeking rabble rousing an offramp than parties at war.
That shit is also the beginnings of giving the Herd an offramp as well. Everyone that made grandiose wild claims like that leftist Petep can now say "Ha we gave Putin a bloody nose!"
Meanwhile, that very same Washington Post is starting to acknowledge that Putin isn't quite as isolated as is being reported and that's an example of "Western bias" in the reporting.
^ The discussions you and I have been having weeks ahead of the WaPo.
And Zelenskyy is railing out against NATO. Again. You get the feeling the Ukrainian government is feeling betrayed. Gee I wonder why.
|
|
