Don't mention the war?

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its the way of the internet these days . 

Unless you think that Putin is an evil psychopathic Nazi  wanting to take over the whole World and kill us all (Much  like Saddam and Gadhafi did )  and he needs to be hunted down and killed, then you are a White supremacist, Trump supporting far right Putin supporting Nazi , who needs to be silenced 

 

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ain't that the truth!

 

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Attacking posters that one disagrees with isn't exactly a sign of maturity, but whatever.

Oh the irony!

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

When has Ukraine ever threatened Russia?

 

NATO is a defensive alliance. Its only threat is of a military response if a NATO member is attacked.  With that in mind, the only reason Putin would not want Ukraine in NATO is because Putin wants to be able to attack Ukraine, as he has demonstrated.

All alliances are notionally "defensive".

 

But that's not the way it was read by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

Nothing in the treaty says NATO can't launch a pre-emptive attack itself (a "special operation"?) without being first attacked. 

 

The agreement about it as an option would be contained in a "secret clause", which would not be publicised........a frequent historical occurence.

 

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War being as concerned about a pre-emptive NATO attack as NATO was about a WARPAC one.

 

And nothing in the treaty prevents NATO members agreeing, as independent nations, to form an alliance (including any other nations that wish to join) to commence war against any other nation or alliance.

 

That would be the correct thing to do if any other nation/alliance behaved in such a way as to attract near universal disapproval and condemnation among the worldwide community of nations.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, it is not implied.  Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic.

 

Russia is being thwarted with the current approach of supplying Ukraine with weapons and economic sanctions against Russia.  If this approach is maintained or, better yet, strengthened Russia will be stopped without the involvement of NATO forces in Ukraine.

 

Apparently you have not considered the possibility that some of the posters on this forum have well-informed, nuanced opinions on this matter that do not agree with your views.

Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic.

and your point is?

 

If this approach is maintained or, better yet, strengthened Russia will be stopped without the involvement of NATO forces in Ukraine.

Are you saying that NATO can get involved with a conflict that is not against a country in NATO. That is highly unlikely.

 

Apparently you have not considered the possibility that some of the posters on this forum have well-informed, nuanced opinions on this matter that do not agree with your views.

To assume I do not have nuanced opinions is extremely arrogant, and given the cut and paste of some posters I doubt they are any better informed than myself. Some of them seem to spend more time personally attacking posters that disagree with them than on the topic.

 

Next.

 

 

 

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Doesn't he just want a Ukraine that isn't affiliated with NATO ?

I don't for one moment, believe that the current conflict has much to do with NATO membership alone. In my view it has everything to do with meglomania, paranoia and empire building.

 

At the moment Putin already has 2 NATO members on his border - Estonia and Latvia. If he takes Ukraine he would then have Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania as well - all NATO members on his border. Would that not be an even bigger threat?  The threat by the way, exists only in Putin's mind - NATO is a defence organisation and its actions are triggered if any country attacks a member so even if Ukraine was a member, he would not have a problem as long as he didn't attack it.

 

He has put out several reasons for his 'Special Military Operation' and NATO membership is only one of them.  However, he has for years, claimed that Ukraine does not exist as a nation, he sees it as part of Russia.  There's plenty of reading available on the subject, some with differing viewpoints but after reading quite a few variations, I came to the conclusion that he simply wants Ukraine back where he thinks it belongs.  Urkaine's attempts to join NATO and more lately, the EU have shown him that Ukraine is moving further away from Russia his chances of returning it to the fold are diminishing.

 

As I'm sure you know, you cannot believe anything that Putin says - he had no intention of invading Ukraine remember? You have to examine the history, other events in the region and his statements to both his government and the Russian people.  Putin used to have a friendly Ukranian leader in his pocket, as he has in Belarus.  It is no coincidence that he invaded Crimea in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine where it became clear which way the Ukranian people were looking - towards Europe.

 

There have been several Russian exiles on TV recently giving their take on Putin and his actions and one, his name escapes me, has it exactly as I concluded above.  There have been several world leaders with similar traits to Putin over the last 150 years or so - all lunatics and all expansionists.  In Putin's case I believe he just couldn't take Ukraine moving further and further out of his grasp and the Maidan Revolution showed him that he was unlikely to ever be able to install another one of his puppets in Ukraine again.

 

He's spent years spreading a narrative to the Russian people that the EU, US, UK and several other countries are all anti Russian and by and large, they've taken it in (a little surprising seeing as many of those countries. especially Germany have been buying increasing amounts of Russian gas and oil).  I believe that it was therefore, fairly easy for him to convince his people that he had no choice but to invade Ukraine and 'liberate' it from the 'Nazis' who he says are controlling it.

 

Putin knows that in reality, the determination to have real democracy in Ukraine, established in the Maidan Revolution, is very strong - unlike the quasi demcracy that he's engineered in his own country.  The only possible way he can regain control of Ukraine is militarily. Whether he planned that to be by increments or whether that's just the way things have panned out is hard to judge but it seems that he grealty under-estimated the Ukranian military's will to fight.

 

In the light of how badly things have gone for him so far, I believe that once he established a 'Land Bridge' between Crimea and Western Russia he will try to negotiate an end to hostilities on the condition that he keeps control of all the territory he's gained.  I think that Ukraine is very unlikely to accept that, I just hope that they aren't pushed to accept it by their Western 'allies'. That would be a big mistake - he'll be at it again in a few years.

[thaibeachlovers]

53 minutes ago, Enoon said:

And nothing in the treaty prevents NATO members agreeing, as independent nations, to form an alliance (including any other nations that wish to join) to commence war against any other nation or alliance.

While that is probably correct, could they use any intelligence or material assets that belong to NATO?

 

IMO whether NATO dispenses with the treaty members only response, or it's individual nations forming a new alliance it will likely be at minimum the destruction of Europe, and potentially WW3.

Is that really what the sabre rattlers want? Haven't we had enough body bags from Afghanistan ( and for nothing it would seem ) and Iraq to learn that fighting only benefits the arms manufacturers?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

In the light of how badly things have gone for him so far, I believe that once he established a 'Land Bridge' between Crimea and Western Russia he will try to negotiate and end to hostilities on the condition that he keeps control of all the territory he's gained.  I think that Ukraine is very unlikely to accept that, I just hope that they aren't pushed to accept it by their Western 'allies'. That would be a big mistake - he'll be at it again in a few years.

IMO that comes down to how much western nations are willing to donate in a time of covid related financial distress, and how many bodies Ukrainians are willing to accept.

 

My view point is that given an acceptable out western nations with an eye to elections will be pressuring Ukraine to accept. It'll be a hard sell to convince suffering populations that spending more on Ukraine after an end is offered is a good idea.

 

Who cares what the future of Ukraine holds when one is losing one's house because interest rates went up due to inflation?

 

BTW, if the interest in Ukraine where I live is any guide, it's a non issue- zero in fact.

People are concerned about being able to afford petrol to go to work and buying food, not some European conflict.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

That would be the correct thing to do if any other nation/alliance behaved in such a way as to attract near universal disapproval and condemnation among the worldwide community of nations.

I wonder how many posters on here would be willing to put their lives or their son's lives on the line for Ukraine?

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, if the interest in Ukraine where I live is any guide, it's a non issue- zero in fact.

I very much doubt you live in Ukraine.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Like what ?

Fear mongering by Ukrainian  supporters trying to get NATO to intervene and help them in their war ?

Clearly Finland and Sweden which have remained outside of Nato, disagree with you.

 

 

Finland and Sweden take major step towards joining Nato

Finland and Sweden took a major step towards joining Nato on Wednesday, after their prime ministers said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had changed Europe’s “whole security landscape” and “dramatically shaped mindsets” in the Nordic countries.

The Finnish prime minister, Sanna Marin, said on Wednesday that her country, which shares a 1,300km (810-mile) border with Russia, would decide whether to apply to join the alliance “quite fast, in weeks not months”, despite the risk of infuriating Moscow.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/13/finland-and-sweden-could-apply-for-nato-membership-in-weeks

 

What would be their motive for considering joining NATO now unless they felt their situation was more dangerous outside of NATO than inside? Some of us might think that these nations, especially Finland, have a bit more expertise understanding Russia's aims than do armchair apologists for Russia.

 

And there's also this:

How Putin's Denial of Ukraine's Statehood Rewrites History

As Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into two rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine late Monday night, recognizing the regions as independent, he returned to a familiar argument that the Kremlin has pushed for years: that Ukraine’s claim to statehood is entirely baseless. In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”

https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-putin/

 

 

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who cares what the future of Ukraine holds when one is losing one's house because interest rates went up due to inflation?

If people had felt that way in 1939, where would we be now?

 

Yes, there is a percentage of people that care only about themselves and can't look at the bigger picture or the longer term.  Thankfully, as the generousity of the people of Poland etc. has shown, such people are in the minority - as you are here.

[KhaoYai]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And there's also this:

How Putin's Denial of Ukraine's Statehood Rewrites History

As Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into two rebel-held regions in eastern Ukraine late Monday night, recognizing the regions as independent, he returned to a familiar argument that the Kremlin has pushed for years: that Ukraine’s claim to statehood is entirely baseless. In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.”

https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-putin/

Thank you for that.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

All alliances are notionally "defensive".

 

But that's not the way it was read by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

Nothing in the treaty says NATO can't launch a pre-emptive attack itself (a "special operation"?) without being first attacked. 

 

The agreement about it as an option would be contained in a "secret clause", which would not be publicised........a frequent historical occurence.

 

The Soviet Union spent the Cold War being as concerned about a pre-emptive NATO attack as NATO was about a WARPAC one.

 

And nothing in the treaty prevents NATO members agreeing, as independent nations, to form an alliance (including any other nations that wish to join) to commence war against any other nation or alliance.

 

That would be the correct thing to do if any other nation/alliance behaved in such a way as to attract near universal disapproval and condemnation among the worldwide community of nations.

You speculate endless on secret agreements and intentions without any evidence.  The fact remains that NATO has never initiated any kind of war, NATO has only become involved in conflicts after a member has been attacked.  Russia has initiated unprovoked wars, and is doing so now. 

[KhaoYai]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

People are concerned about being able to afford petrol to go to work and buying food, not some European conflict.

God I hope you end up in dire straits one day.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Such as? Some actual facts would be helpful.

You mean that it being an opinion isn't enough to prevent it being challenged?

[KhaoYai]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how many posters on here would be willing to put their lives or their son's lives on the line for Ukraine?

Clearly you wouldn't

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, KhaoYai said:

God I hope you end up in dire straits one day.

5555555555555555555

I am already due to inflation. Be happy.

 

BTW, are you volunteering to go fight for the Ukrainians?

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is there anything to suggest that Putin wants anting other than a non hostile Ukraine ?

Doesn't he just want a Ukraine that isn't affiliated with NATO ?

And here's an article from Putin himself, in which he denies that Ukraine is an authentic nation.

 

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic.

and your point is?

 

If this approach is maintained or, better yet, strengthened Russia will be stopped without the involvement of NATO forces in Ukraine.

Are you saying that NATO can get involved with a conflict that is not against a country in NATO. That is highly unlikely.

 

Apparently you have not considered the possibility that some of the posters on this forum have well-informed, nuanced opinions on this matter that do not agree with your views.

To assume I do not have nuanced opinions is extremely arrogant, and given the cut and paste of some posters I doubt they are any better informed than myself. Some of them seem to spend more time personally attacking posters that disagree with them than on the topic.

 

Next.

"Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic.

and your point is?"

 

You stated support for Ukraine implies a desire for NATO to get involved in militarily in Ukraine.

 

"Are you saying that NATO can get involved with a conflict that is not against a country in NATO. That is highly unlikely."

 

Seriously?  What do you think is happening now with NATO and Ukraine?

 

"To assume I do not have nuanced opinions is extremely arrogant..."

 

I never stated that.  I posted that you don't give others credit for nuanced, informed posts.  It seems you still don't.  Perhaps if you read their posts more carefully...

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

Clearly you wouldn't

You got that right. It's nothing to do with me.

You can keep the "it's the ultimate fight for the soul of humanity" for those that believe in that sort of thing.

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how many posters on here would be willing to put their lives or their son's lives on the line for Ukraine?

When will you identify these posters that want western nations to put troops on the ground in Ukraine?

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

When will you identify these posters that want western nations to put troops on the ground in Ukraine?

I do.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

"Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic.

and your point is?"

 

You stated support for Ukraine implies a desire for NATO to get involved in militarily in Ukraine.

 

"Are you saying that NATO can get involved with a conflict that is not against a country in NATO. That is highly unlikely."

 

Seriously?  What do you think is happening now with NATO and Ukraine?

 

"To assume I do not have nuanced opinions is extremely arrogant..."

 

I never stated that.  I posted that you don't give others credit for nuanced, informed posts.  It seems you still don't.  Perhaps if you read their posts more carefully...

 

 

You stated support for Ukraine implies a desire for NATO to get involved in militarily in Ukraine.

I understand that statements such as "Russia has to be stopped" are involving a military solution. I doubt Russia could be stopped any other way, short of Gorbachev rising from the dead and taking over again.

 

What do you think is happening now with NATO and Ukraine?

I haven't read any reports of NATO troops massing on the border, so I'd say not much other than intelligence reports etc.

 

I posted that you don't give others credit for nuanced, informed posts.  It seems you still don't.  Perhaps if you read their posts more carefully...

Are you pulling my leg?

 

 

[heybruce]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

I do.

To my knowledge you are the only one to openly say so.

 

Giving Ukraine the means to defend itself, and using sanctions to limit Russia's ability to fund the war, is effective. 

 

Getting other nations actively involved in combat in Ukraine opens a Pandora's box of risk; not least of which is providing Russia with "justification" to launch attacks on those nations.  That could quickly escalate into something unmanageable.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You stated support for Ukraine implies a desire for NATO to get involved in militarily in Ukraine.

I understand that statements such as "Russia has to be stopped" are involving a military solution. I doubt Russia could be stopped any other way, short of Gorbachev rising from the dead and taking over again.

 

What do you think is happening now with NATO and Ukraine?

I haven't read any reports of NATO troops massing on the border, so I'd say not much other than intelligence reports etc.

 

I posted that you don't give others credit for nuanced, informed posts.  It seems you still don't.  Perhaps if you read their posts more carefully...

Are you pulling my leg?

 

 

You have far to narrow an interpretation of the statement "Russia must be stopped". 

 

Do you think providing Ukraine with weapons is not military involvement?

 

No, I'm not pulling your leg.  Once again, read posts carefully and reply to what is posted, not what you think is implied.

[Rimmer]

Some off topic bickering posts and replies have been removed

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its the way of the internet these days . 

Unless you think that Putin is an evil psychopathic Nazi  wanting to take over the whole World and kill us all (Much  like Saddam and Gadhafi did )  and he needs to be hunted down and killed, then you are a White supremacist, Trump supporting far right Putin supporting Nazi , who needs to be silenced 

 I'm beginning to think you believe that the former president is the MSG of discussions: just sprinkle in his name to make them better.

[Grusa]

On 3/26/2022 at 10:53 AM, shackleton said:

In my compound there are a few Farangs when we talk there is no mention of the Russian/ Ukraine war 

Unless you are from that part of the world it does not effect you 

Same majority of Thais who would as already been mentioned 

 would not know where in the world its happening 

Unless you are in the Tourist business Hotels  restaurants ect  

 

We have Russian owners living on both sides an opposite, of those two are presently absent.

A couple nights ago our neighbour invited us in for drinks and to discuss the war in ukraine. It ended up being Mrs G and I, 4 other males and a female. Female is Ukranian, her partner is Russian from Novosibirsk. The house owner is Russian of Ukranian extraction and has a business in Irkutsk. The other two are Muskovites.

Not one of them approves of the war, or supports Putin. They believe he is too well protected to be assassinated, but does not have the ability to launch nuclear weapons, as it takes three separate codes.

They are happy to be prisoners here, as travel home is too difficult, the business is trashed , and they have bitcoin.

All very friendly.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I suppose you include me in that "veiled" attack, but I've never supported war from any side, and am attempting ( and obviously failing ) to bring some balance to the thread amidst the posts with nothing more to say than "Putin bad man" over and over and over, and those that detail the horrible things that happen in any war, but have little to contribute to the debate.

 

IMO there is more to this conflict than is apparent, and if any that try to see both sides are shouted down and cancelled those doing the shouting and cancelling do the debate a dis service.

Closed minded attitudes never solved anything.

 

Let's remember that all we can do is give our opinions, as I'm pretty sure that no one on here is part of those that actually make the decisions in the halls of power, and attacking those that disagree with you does nothing for the conversation, but it does say something about those that resort to personal attacks.

 

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its the way of the internet these days . 

Unless you think that Putin is an evil psychopathic Nazi  wanting to take over the whole World and kill us all (Much  like Saddam and Gadhafi did )  and he needs to be hunted down and killed, then you are a White supremacist, Trump supporting far right Putin supporting Nazi , who needs to be silenced 

Your posts come across as an anti Ukraine, NATO and the west. They have little to say of substance to justify the invasion, the actions taken by the invaders, and what a better response by the west should be. I said as much directly to Mac Mickmanus a few pages back but no response.

Mac Mickmanus is dismissive of those showing significant concern about a leader who is in control of nuclear weapons, is threating to use them, and who is personally responsible for the devastation and deaths in Ukraine.

ThaiBeachLovers says there needs to be balance about Putin being good or bad and suggesting crimes happen in any war. 

You both appear to tell us above what Putin is not in your eyes. It would be good to hear what he is, and a justification for the actions of Putin and or Russia, if you think it is appropriate. 

[ozimoron]

7 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Is there anything to suggest that Putin wants anting other than a non hostile Ukraine ?

Doesn't he just want a Ukraine that isn't affiliated with NATO ?

He wants a Ukraine which is either part of Russia or strongly affiliated with Russia by virtue of a Russia friendly puppet government.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589

[coolcarer]

7 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Like what ?

Fear mongering by Ukrainian  supporters trying to get NATO to intervene and help them in their war ?

Putin thought Ukraine war was a missile to Nato. It may be a boomerang

 

It is conceivable that by the end of the year Nato’s land mass, GDP and territorial borders with Russia may expand by nearly as much as they would have if Ukraine had achieved its distant goal of eventual membership of the western defence alliance – if not more.

The brutal manner in which Vladimir Putin has tried to foreclose Ukraine’s security options has led to a sudden change in thinking in Finland and Sweden that has been all the more powerful since it seems to have come from below, as opposed to from the political elites.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/15/putin-thought-ukraine-war-was-a-missile-to-nato-it-may-be-a-boomerang?CMP=share_btn_tw