Lao Tse
Verified User
are you for a two state solution?When did he ever? He did not attack Ukraine to turn back. He cannot come home with nothing. That would be suicide.
are you for a two state solution?When did he ever? He did not attack Ukraine to turn back. He cannot come home with nothing. That would be suicide.
We have discovered that Ukraine can survive for months without US aid. trump wants to end the war quickly. he might just start sending Putin aid to help with genocide.Putin is waiting for his pee pal Trump to win! Then Trump will have us funding Putin's war!
The whole purpose of aiding Ukraine is so it can remain a separate state, so I guess most people are for a two state solution in Ukraine.are you for a two state solution?
separate from NATO?The whole purpose of aiding Ukraine is so it can remain a separate state, so I guess most people are for a two state solution in Ukraine.
It has been a long standing agreement that countries are allowed to decide what alliances they want. The USSR pushed for that.separate from NATO?
are you aware that Ukraine is CIA controlled puppet government?It has been a long standing agreement that countries are allowed to decide what alliances they want. The USSR pushed for that.
Besides the bigger issue is the EU. If Ukraine joins the EU, and becomes a successful economy, the next question is why is Russia not a successful economy? At least with Estonia, Russians could say they were a very different ethnicity.
I think Ukraine should be successful members of the EU, if that is what they desire. If that pushes Russia to be less corrupt... That is ever better for me.
Putin has him by the mushroom head with thatWe have discovered that Ukraine can survive for months without US aid. trump wants to end the war quickly. he might just start sending Putin aid to help with genocide.
Looks like Putin has no interest in negotiating now.Glad we're now on the same page in regards to negotiations with Russia. Some people seem willing to continue to risk World War III for what I think amounts to misteps mostly made by western Ukraine and the western powers that backed it.
Institute for the Study of War
Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly rejected Russian participation in any meaningful negotiations on a ceasefire agreement, instead demanding Ukraine's "irreversible" "demilitarization" as a precondition for any ceasefire agreement. Putin is thuswww.understandingwar.org
Oh well.
Almost all of the think tanks are majorly funded by the WarPigs.I think it's important to note who funds the Institute of War, which runs the website you linked to:
**
ISW was founded in response to the stagnation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with core funding provided by a group of defense contractors;[6] it continues to be supported by defense contractors as well as private donations.[7]
**
Full article:
Institute for the Study of War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Naturally, defense contractors would like to keep the cash flowing, and war does that nicely. Now let's compare your article with an article from RT that was just published today wherein Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban and President Putin were discussing the 'shortest way out' of the Ukraine conflict. Quoting from the article:
**
The Russian president has reiterated Moscow’s readiness to resolve the hostility through negotiations. The Ukrainian leadership, however, appears to be still incapable of abandoning its idea of waging a war “until the end,” Putin noted.
Moscow is seeking to reach lasting, sustainable peace rather than opting for a temporary ceasefire or a “frozen conflict” of any sort, the Russian president warned.
There should not be a “ceasefire or some kind of pause that the Kiev regime could use to recover losses, regroup, and rearm. Russia is in favor of a complete and final end to the conflict,” he stressed.
**
Full article:
Orban and Putin discuss ‘shortest way out’ of Ukraine conflict
Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban says he discussed “shortest way out” of the Ukrainian conflict with President Vladimir Putin during Moscow visitwww.rt.com
I imagine that last bit comes in no small part due to Putin's disappointment with the former Minsk agreements:
Putin disappointed by Merkel's words about Minsk agreements
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has been disappointed by the statement of German ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel, where she claimed that the Minsk agreements of 2014 enabled Ukraine to prepare for the war with Russia.www.yahoo.com
Well, one also could look at that situation like Russia isn't going to stop at Ukraine.
Masterful takedown by Dominique de Villepin, former French Prime Minister, of Macron's utterly irresponsible rhetoric on sending NATO ground troops to Ukraine (Villepin himself calls it irresponsible).
I translated it in full, because I think it's so important people are aware of the extreme danger behind Macron's (and some other NATO leaders) attempt to escalate the conflict:
"For this debate [over sending ground troops] to have been useful, it would have first been necessary for us to be able to answer 5 questions. Five risks associated with this escalation, this step we would be taking if we were to send ground troops, send fighters. Five risks.
The first is the expansion of the conflict. If we send ground troops, do we know if on the Russian side others will send, on the other side, ground troops? Will we face African fighters, will we face Asian fighters, will we face Middle Eastern fighters in this global south that also wants to take on the West? First risk.
[Host comments: This does not seem to me a favored scenario...]
If Westerners, Europeans, French send troops there, don't you think that solidarity will also play on the Russian side? I think we still need to ask ourselves that question. In any case, our diplomacy has not done what it should have to isolate Russia. If Russia were isolated, we would know it... I think, by the way, that we are more isolated, unfortunately, than Russia.
Second major question: new front. Risk of a new front. I warned, I was among the few voices to say 'be careful, Ukraine is a dangerous situation but what happens if another front opens?'. The front in Gaza and the Middle East has opened. But there are other fronts that can open: in Korea, in Africa... And so, are we going to wage war like this on all 5 continents? This reality must be taken into account: the world is not limited to the drama and tragedy of Ukraine. It turns out that America is a global power and that we claim to be a global power too, so we are concerned by the major balances and the order of the world, and unfortunately our diplomacy does not sufficiently take into account these disorders which concern the Congolese, the Sudanese, etc.
Third risk which is important: the terrorist risk. I am not thinking of terrorism that would come from our opponents in Ukraine, I am thinking of opportunistic terrorism. When there are situations of this type of disorder, terrorism strikes. And I remind you: we have planned here in France not a year of war, but a year of celebrations. In a few months, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings and delegations will come from all over the world. We are going to spend several months celebrating the Olympics. If we need to mobilize, let's mobilize, but maybe it should have been done a bit more: I don't see a war economy, the preparation of minds in terms of civil defense and hybrid warfare, I see nothing... You don't just pull the idea of going to war in Ukraine out of a hat without having prepared a little...
Fourth risk: we are on the eve of an American election that will determine the new world order. It's a safe bet that we are heading for a new era of isolationism and protectionism like the world has never seen. We are seeing a split in this new world order between Trump and a China that has just celebrated the reunion of its parliament and is becoming more introverted, more focused on its security than ever. This is a general global context that must be taken into account.
And then there's one last element that may be one of the most important, which is the nuclear risk. I know the good experts, the great experts who speak on this subject and I respect them immensely. But sending ground troops, fighters, places us in a situation in terms of deterrence that we have never known. Forty years of Cold War: the forces of the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces never clashed. And it's not by chance: it's because of a reality that relates to the grammar of nuclear.
The rule of deterrence is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. That is, if one uses the bomb and the other responds, we're all dead. [...] I think the nuclear grammar means that today the risk of NATO ground troops in Ukraine presents a risk and that this risk, for responsible powers, is unacceptable. I travel enough around the world to have observed something for 15 years: the use of nuclear weapons is based on political cultures, societal cultures, and civilizations. The world is changing and what seemed unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago appears today differently: the rhetoric of the enemy, the hatred of the other, has developed to a point where we live in an international community that may want to settle scores with the other. [...] Today, and I'm not just thinking of the Russians, let's not forget nuclear proliferation with countries like Pakistan and many others that now have nuclear weapons.
And it is in this that the principle of responsibility is essential, and there is a rule that must be drawn from all this: the logic of force, when not controlled, leads to an escalation that can be deadly. This is what makes the situation in Ukraine a real danger and it's also what makes - because this principle of the logic of uncontrolled force I would gladly apply to the situation in Gaza - it's what makes the Israeli policy applied today to Gaza a real danger. Because there is no control over the use of force. And when you look [...] all fronts are linked, all crises are linked."
Nonsense.Well, one also could look at that situation like Russia isn't going to stop at Ukraine.
they're actually kind of an oil giant.It has been a long standing agreement that countries are allowed to decide what alliances they want. The USSR pushed for that.
Besides the bigger issue is the EU. If Ukraine joins the EU, and becomes a successful economy, the next question is why is Russia not a successful economy? At least with Estonia, Russians could say they were a very different ethnicity.
I think Ukraine should be successful members of the EU, if that is what they desire. If that pushes Russia to be less corrupt... That is ever better for me.
Maybe Russia lacks freedom and prosperity because of the resource curse of the oil, but I think it is more their complete failure to try to live a western lifestyle. There is too much money for the elites to keep the status quo.they're actually kind of an oil giant.
dumbfuck CIA shill tard. that's why you bombed their pipeline, mossad-hole
Ukraine is not in NATO.separate from NATO?