4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

End game?

 

Russia gets Donbass and officially gets to keep Crimea.

Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, but can join the EU.

Russia guarantees Ukranian sovereignty. 

 

I hope that doesn't happen as it will be a reward for Putin's aggression.

On 11/30/2023 at 11:04 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

My 2 bob's worth is that western powers, mainly the US decided to punish Russia by a rapid victory over the invasion, but erred in the assessment that Russia would quickly be sent packing, humiliated. I doubt they anticipated the resilience of the Russians, or appreciated the cost of a drawn out stalemate. Having boxed themselves into a rhetorical corner, it would be too embarrassing to admit they were wrong and to give up, so IMO the debate is now as how to extract themselves, and their taxes, from the Ukrainian fiasco without losing too much face.

Yeiks!ok at the beginning of this war of aggression purpertrated solely by Putin on the grounds (almost verbatim) I might add by her hitler to protect the Russian speaking people (bs) it’s a land grab buffer.the conventional wisdom was 2 weeks at most of resistance from Ukraine.the Russians were stopped dead in their tracks got their rear ends kicked and sent packing no body’s punishing Russia this is entirely self inflicted by Mr Putin.Im sure the Ukrainians are well aware of the task before them they have the catalyst of seeing their wives and daughters raped lands stolen children murdered homes bombed infrastructure destroyed lands polluted and you say  admit they are WRONG?how on gods earth could you say such a thing when someone does that to you your neighbors your country YOU FIGHT all stop.they are doing an excellent job of it and with support they will prevail.keeping in mind putin begs N Korea for ammo conscripts out of prisons cannot tolerate dissent ie long prison terms for speaking out he’s on top of a house of cards he’s a marked man.the Russians deserve better and obviously so does Ukraine 🇺🇦 salva Ukraine 🇺🇦!!!

15 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

How do you expect to get any news if your only source of news is from an Arab  state  owned so called news outlet?

Al Jazeera has been an excellent source of news on Ukraine in the past, and are not a Russian supporter, so your post is mere deflection.

Also, you omitted to inform us as to a better and impartial major network from which to obtain information on Ukraine, and you fail to prove that there is an active war situation in Ukraine involving a counter attack by Ukraine.

 

Next.

16 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

End game?

 

Russia gets Donbass and officially gets to keep Crimea.

Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, but can join the EU.

Russia guarantees Ukranian sovereignty. 

 

The last line is amusing, thanks.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Al Jazeera has been an excellent source of news on Ukraine in the past, and are not a Russian supporter, so your post is mere deflection.

Also, you omitted to inform us as to a better and impartial major network from which to obtain information on Ukraine, and you fail to prove that there is an active war situation in Ukraine involving a counter attack by Ukraine.

 

Next.

 

I say put him on 'ignore'.

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I say put him on 'ignore'.

If you do that you will some of the best jokes not posted in the joke section!

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

If you do that you will some of the best jokes not posted in the joke section!

Oops! I missed "miss" out of the above!  I am sure you have worked uot it should have said

"If you do that you will miss some of the best jokes not posted in the joke section!"

On 12/1/2023 at 11:24 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Zelensky should have read up on a bit of British history before trusting a word that came out of Boris's mouth. Things might have been so different with a lot less dead to bury.

 

Ukraine doesn't need to read history to know that Russia and Putin can't be trusted.  Are there any commitments to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and security that Russia has not broken?

 

On 12/2/2023 at 7:09 AM, Hanaguma said:

End game?

 

Russia gets Donbass and officially gets to keep Crimea.

Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, but can join the EU.

Russia guarantees Ukranian sovereignty. 

 

Please read the above.

On 12/2/2023 at 7:09 PM, Hanaguma said:

End game?

 

Russia gets Donbass and officially gets to keep Crimea.

Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, but can join the EU.

Russia guarantees Ukranian sovereignty. 

A Russian guarantee of Ukranian sovereignty would be worthless without NATO membership.

 

Next 

...

26 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A Russian guarantee of Ukranian sovereignty would be worthless without NATO membership.

 

Next 

...

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

40 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

That's stupid. Why do you think Finland and Sweden are entering Nato? Because of out of control Russian aggression! Nato is a DEFENSIVE organization. Duh. 

46 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

Seriously? Trust Putin's signature?

The only thing which would make a treaty more or less reliable is  a Chinese guarantee!

 

As to your comments about the EU: defense is not part of EU's prerogatives. The de-facto European defense union is NATO.

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

 

Would it help if they changes the name? Granted, NATO is both catchy and by now, a brand - but I'm sure something could be worked out.

17 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

"A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc."

 

Russia was tied to Europe as a client for resources when it invaded Ukraine.  Not much of a guarantee.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc."

 

Russia was tied to Europe as a client for resources when it invaded Ukraine.  Not much of a guarantee.

But Europe could make the decision to stop buying Russian gas.  If they had the stones, that is.  Other countries could provide it, they could switch to more nuclear power- a very green option.

 

Not sure what other end game is realistic. Ukraine doesn't have the combat power to push the Russians back.  One thing the Russians have traditionally been very good at militarily is defence.  They are stubborn, and engineer their territory very well. The Ukranian army would bleed itself white throwing itself at the Russians if they try to regain all their lost land.

 

So that leaves us with a settlement.  Either that, or the Europeans can start using their OWN militaries to attack the Russian troops currently in Ukraine. And I don't think they are willing to do that.  

33 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

But Europe could make the decision to stop buying Russian gas.  If they had the stones, that is.  Other countries could provide it, they could switch to more nuclear power- a very green option.

 

Not sure what other end game is realistic. Ukraine doesn't have the combat power to push the Russians back.  One thing the Russians have traditionally been very good at militarily is defence.  They are stubborn, and engineer their territory very well. The Ukranian army would bleed itself white throwing itself at the Russians if they try to regain all their lost land.

 

So that leaves us with a settlement.  Either that, or the Europeans can start using their OWN militaries to attack the Russian troops currently in Ukraine. And I don't think they are willing to do that.  

 

Europe has greatly reduced its' dependency on Russian gas but imo more could be done to make economic sanctions on Russia bite. However, this would probably require all members of the G20 to agree upon what needs to be done which appears unlikely: The effect of the EU and UK placing sanctions on Russia is undermined by the likes of China and India increasing their imports.

 

Switching to nuclear or other forms of energy is not a short-term option.

 

If appeasement of Putin and his methods is to be avoided, then we are in a war of attrition*

 

*which I realise is easy for me to say from a position of relative safety and comfort

47 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

But Europe could make the decision to stop buying Russian gas.  If they had the stones, that is.  Other countries could provide it, they could switch to more nuclear power- a very green option.

 

Not sure what other end game is realistic. Ukraine doesn't have the combat power to push the Russians back.  One thing the Russians have traditionally been very good at militarily is defence.  They are stubborn, and engineer their territory very well. The Ukranian army would bleed itself white throwing itself at the Russians if they try to regain all their lost land.

 

So that leaves us with a settlement.  Either that, or the Europeans can start using their OWN militaries to attack the Russian troops currently in Ukraine. And I don't think they are willing to do that.  

 

Here's a graph showing how much Europe has already reduced it's imports of Russian gas:

Russia gas imports have already been reduced to a relative trickle.

As for your suggestion about nuclear power...because nuclear power plants can be built practically overnight?

 

As for your comments about the military ... remember those assessments about Ukraine's chances against Russia before the invasion? And the Russian collapse in eastern Ukraine? Such categorical pronouncements that you indulge in aren't to be taken seriously. Lots of variables involved in this war.

 

20 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

NATO seems to be straying farther and farther from the "North Atlantic" part of the name these days...Ukraine being a member makes as much sense as Turkey. Which is zero. 

 

A Russian guarantee could be tied to access to Europe as a client for resources etc.  And the EU would be free to station troops in Ukraine for "training missions" at their leisure.  But it seems like Europe is reluctant to actually spend much of their own money without getting a bit assist from Uncle Sugar. 

 

Now, maybe you tlhink that North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed as a kind of organization for beachcombers. As I recall, and maybe I've got this wrong, it was created to counter the threat from the Soviet Union. You remember the Soviet Union? What Putin mourns as his lost Russian empire. It was called NATO because at that time it was pretty much Western Europe that fell under its aegis so defining it by the Atlantic coastline made sense.  Guess what? The situation has changed.  The portion of Europe that is threatened by what remains of the Russian empire has moved east. And so has the threat.

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Now, maybe you tlhink that North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed as a kind of organization for beachcombers. As I recall, and maybe I've got this wrong, it was created to counter the threat from the Soviet Union. You remember the Soviet Union? What Putin mourns as his lost Russian empire. It was called NATO because at that time it was pretty much Western Europe that fell under its aegis so defining it by the Atlantic coastline made sense.  Guess what? The situation has changed.  The portion of Europe that is threatened by what remains of the Russian empire has moved east. And so has the threat.

Then Europe can defend itself. The EU has more than enough economic power to provide a robust continental defence without relying on Uncle Sam. As you said, the threat that NATO was formed to protect against, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, are gone. And so is NATO's raison d'etre. 

 

The real enemy to fear now is China, not Russia and its Canada-level GDP.

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Then Europe can defend itself. The EU has more than enough economic power to provide a robust continental defence without relying on Uncle Sam. As you said, the threat that NATO was formed to protect against, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, are gone. And so is NATO's raison d'etre. 

 

The real enemy to fear now is China, not Russia and its Canada-level GDP.

You got a kind of obsession with names? What was mostly the Soviet Union was Russia. The threat is still there. An ogre by any other name...

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You got a kind of obsession with names? What was mostly the Soviet Union was Russia. The threat is still there. An ogre by any other name...

An ogre with a broken leg and asthma is not the threat that he was when young and strong. And Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union. Their ability to project power is virtually nil.  Like I said, if all of Europe can't muster up the energy to fight off a country with 10% of the EU's GDP, then maybe they deserve to be conquered. But they certainly don't need to be defended by anyone other than themselves. 

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

An ogre with a broken leg and asthma is not the threat that he was when young and strong. And Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union. Their ability to project power is virtually nil.  Like I said, if all of Europe can't muster up the energy to fight off a country with 10% of the EU's GDP, then maybe they deserve to be conquered. But they certainly don't need to be defended by anyone other than themselves. 

Tell that to the Moldovans, the Georgians, and the Byelorussians. And the Estonians, the Latvians, and the Finns.

Edited December 5, 20232 yr by placeholder

Ukraine has been a disaster of monumental proportions for the US, and more importantly the poor people of Ukraine!! Republicans  and Democrats are the Anti.  

whatever the one is, the other is anti.

 

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Ukraine has been a disaster of monumental proportions for the US, and more importantly the poor people of Ukraine!! Republicans  and Democrats are the Anti.  

whatever the one is, the other is anti.

 

Exactly how has Ukraine been a disaster for the US?

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Tell that to the Moldovans, the Georgians, and the Byelorussians. And the Estonians, the Latvians, and the Finns.

WHoah! Did Russia conquer all those countries?

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

WHoah! Did Russia conquer all those countries?

Russia or its proxies occupy parts of Moldova and Georgia. With its troops, it helped the detested Byelorussian govt remain in power. It has routinely provoke border incidents with Estonia and Latvia. Part of what is now Russia used to be Finland in the 20th century.

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Exactly how has Ukraine been a disaster for the US?

BRICS 

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

BRICS 

And BRICS is tied to Ukraine how? And for that matter how is BRICS doing? 

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Russia or its proxies occupy parts of Moldova and Georgia. With its troops, it helped the detested Byelorussian govt remain in power. It has routinely provoke border incidents with Estonia and Latvia. Part of what is now Russia used to be Finland in the 20th century.

In other words, no they were not conquered. Plus they are all virtual border regions of Russia, so hardly projection of power.  I don't see the big threat at all.  Nothing that Europe cannot or should not handle if they had the gumption.  

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And BRICS is tied to Ukraine how? And for that matter how is BRICS doing? 

For many years there have been unsuccessful attempts towards the de-dollarization  of world trade  The freezing of Russian assets by the Americans , and the fear by others that the same could happen to them if they did not play ball with the US , provided the catalyst for the creation BRICS.

 

"Western sanctions on Russia could push the BRICS alliance closer "

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/11/western-sanctions-on-russia-could-push-the-brics-alliance-closer-appec.html