White House warns Ukraine aid is running out

[sirineou]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

You offered a premise based around a theory about a US-led unipolar hegemony

it is very simple 

Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO . full stop period. 

The US is the Unipolar hegemon of the world at this point, with the emergence of China , that position is threaten. 

There are three Superpowers in the World right now

Tha US , China and a distant third Rusia 

Google it

By cutting Russia down to size there remain only two Superpowers.

How hard is it to understand that?

If you were in a competition would you want one competitor against you or two? 

 

[Jingthing]

Russians will tell you that they invaded Russia because of the Nazis there. It can be challenging for Russian propaganda repeaters to keep up.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, sirineou said:

Ok .. Perhapse.

Which ones? and how? 

IMO you are pushing it uphill. Some on here are only interested in sniping at anyone with a different opinion, not in contributing to a rational discussion, and justifying their stance with some reasons for them.

[kwonitoy]

it is very simple 

Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO . full stop period. 

 

Absolute nonsense

https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/

 

Putin’s numerious attempts to falsely present Russia as the “victim defending itself from an ‘aggressive’ West”, NATO’s expansion or “radical Nazis killing Russian speaking citizens” are nonsensical and serve as a tool of reflective control in order to cover up Putin’s own aggressive ambitions. 

[RayC]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO you are pushing it uphill. Some on here are only interested in sniping at anyone with a different opinion, not in contributing to a rational discussion, and justifying their stance with some reasons for them.

 

😂That last sentence is a priceless example of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Imo those who are unable to compose a rational, coherent argument to support their premise usually fall back on tired excuses such as labelling their opponents close-minded, MSM bias or a variety of assorted conspiracy theories.

[RayC]

19 hours ago, sirineou said:

it is very simple 

Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO . full stop period. 

 

We are going round in circles!

 

It is not "very simple ...full stop period" because the statement "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" is not - as I have pointed out previously -  an 'a prori truth' i.e. true in itself and not requiring any further justification.

 

In order for the statement: "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO"  to have validity, it needs evidence to support it. To date, you haven't supplied any, other than another theory about Russia securing the only avenue by which it might be attacked. This latter theory has been debunked by geographical fact. 

 

19 hours ago, sirineou said:

The US is the Unipolar hegemon of the world at this point, with the emergence of China , that position is threaten. 

There are three Superpowers in the World right now

Tha US , China and a distant third Rusia 

Google it

By cutting Russia down to size there remain only two Superpowers.

How hard is it to understand that?

 

It is not in the slightest bit difficult to understand that because it is (overly) simplistic. However - repeating myself for the umpteenth time -  simply stating it does not make it necessarily true. You need to supply evidence to support this premise. You haven't done so. How difficult is that to understand?

 

Another competing theory is that Russia - or more specifically, Putin - does not recognise the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign nation. Evidence for this premise exists: Google it!

 

19 hours ago, sirineou said:

 

If you were in a competition would you want one competitor against you or two? 

 

 

Intuitively, one. And your point is?

 

You surely don't consider this constitutes sufficient evidence to support your premise?

[sirineou]

50 minutes ago, RayC said:

It is not "very simple ...full stop period" because the statement "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" is not - as I have pointed out previously -  an 'a prori truth' i.e. true in itself and not requiring any further justification.

 

In order for the statement: "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO"  to have validity, it needs evidence to support it.

I told you what ambassador to Russia and current Director of the CIA Burns said, I told told you  what Angela Merkle said . What then president of France Sarközy said .

What do you want? the clouds to part and the booming voice of god to say

"Ohh I forgot, the Eleventh Commandment is , If you try to get Ukraine into NATO . Russia will invade"

 

Anyway. even without god. Have you been living under a rock? or perhaps a bridge?

Noam Chomsky. . leading intellectual who's parents were Ukrainian.   

"Chomsky believes that the main ‘background’ of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is “NATO expansion "

 

"Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine "

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

"The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It "

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it

 

What have you contributed to this conversation?  NOTHING!!

"How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine "

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

 

"Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

 

 

 "He wants to resist the further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), restore Russia's strategic depth, and reclaim its historical sphere of influence around its western borders. Ukraine is central to this goal. "  

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-s-invasion-ukraine-why-why-now#:~:text=He wants to resist the,is central to this goal.

 

"NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine "

" https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion"

 

 

[RayC]

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

I told you what ambassador to Russia and current Director of the CIA Burns said, I told told you  what Angela Merkle said . What then president of France Sarközy said .

What do you want? the clouds to part and the booming voice of god to say

"Ohh I forgot, the Eleventh Commandment is , If you try to get Ukraine into NATO . Russia will invade"

 

Anyway. even without god. Have you been living under a rock? or perhaps a bridge?

Noam Chomsky. . leading intellectual who's parents were Ukrainian.   

"Chomsky believes that the main ‘background’ of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is “NATO expansion "

 

"Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine "

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

"The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It "

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it

 

What have you contributed to this conversation?  NOTHING!!

"How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine "

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

 

"Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

 

 

 "He wants to resist the further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), restore Russia's strategic depth, and reclaim its historical sphere of influence around its western borders. Ukraine is central to this goal. "  

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-s-invasion-ukraine-why-why-now#:~:text=He wants to resist the,is central to this goal.

 

"NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine "

" https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion"

 

 

 

In the words of the UK's recently appointed foreign secretary and former PM, David Cameron: "Calm down, dear!".

 

Let's get some facts straight. Firstly, the only evidence that you previously posted was Burns' quote. You have not mentioned any of the other sources up to now.

 

More importantly, let's for the sake of argument assume that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to prevent further NATO expansion. Even if true, this is in no way sufficient to prove your original contention about the war being due to a US-led unipolar hegemony. As I pointed out in my original reply to you, the US remains influential in Europe and is the driving force in NATO but the EU is highly influential in the region as well, and often holds an opposing view to the US. An example of this is Ukraine's application to join NATO. Contrary to your claim that France and Germany were in favour of the application, the opposite is true

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato

 

I will go even further in playing devil's advocate, let's assume that your premise about this war all being about a US-led unipolar hegemony is correct. Why would the US decide to act now? Surely the annexation of Crimea in 2014 offered just as good an opportunity? More importantly, if this invasion is all part of a plan to reinforce US hegemony, why would Congress think about cutting funds now? What has been achieved from a US perspective? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve as illustrated in the Sachs' link which you posted and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine?

 

I believe that the truth is somewhat more mundane: Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who yearns for the return of a Russian dominated Central and Eastern Europe. This is nicely outlined in a  previously posted link by Kwonitoy (reposted here for ease of reference). Yes, of course it is a bias source but imo the gist of the story rings true.

 

https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/

 

In answer to your other questions: No I have not being living under a rock or a bridge.

 

My question to you: Do you have any more online meetings planned with your fellow conspiracy theorists? If so, would it be possible for me to attend as an observer? I'd like to see first-hand how these things work, although I should warn you that I'll probably drop out when it starts to become really absurd.

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

I told you what ambassador to Russia and current Director of the CIA Burns said, I told told you  what Angela Merkle said . What then president of France Sarközy said .

What do you want? the clouds to part and the booming voice of god to say

"Ohh I forgot, the Eleventh Commandment is , If you try to get Ukraine into NATO . Russia will invade"

 

Anyway. even without god. Have you been living under a rock? or perhaps a bridge?

Noam Chomsky. . leading intellectual who's parents were Ukrainian.   

"Chomsky believes that the main ‘background’ of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is “NATO expansion "

 

"Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine "

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

"The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It "

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato-helped-trigger-ukraine-war-its-not-siding-putin-admit-it

 

What have you contributed to this conversation?  NOTHING!!

"How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine "

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

 

"Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine

 

 

 "He wants to resist the further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), restore Russia's strategic depth, and reclaim its historical sphere of influence around its western borders. Ukraine is central to this goal. "  

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russia-s-invasion-ukraine-why-why-now#:~:text=He wants to resist the,is central to this goal.

 

"NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine "

" https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion"

 

 

Russia didn't want Ukraine, or any other country to join NATO.  Many people stated that, sometimes with hyperbolic rhetoric.

 

Did that justify the invasion?  No!

 

Let's address the question of why Ukraine and other neighbors of Russia want to join NATO.  My theory is that Putin wants to recreate the Russian empire, in part to distract the Russian people from his corrupt and incompetent mismanagement of the Russian economy.  These nations know that and know they need to join a defensive alliance to protect their borders and continued existence as independent nations.

 

Do you have a better theory?

[sirineou]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

In the words of the UK's recently appointed foreign secretary and former PM, David Cameron: "C

In the words of  me 

I am not your "Dear" and if you think so, go <Deleted> yourself 

10 hours ago, RayC said:

More importantly, let's for the sake of argument assume that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to prevent further NATO expansion. Even if true, this is in no way sufficient to prove your original contention about the war being due to a US-led unipolar hegemony. As I pointed out in my original reply to you, the US remains influential in Europe and is the driving force in NATO but the EU is highly influential in the region as well, and often holds an opposing view to the US. An example of this is Ukraine's application to join NATO. Contrary to your claim that France and Germany were in favour of the application, the opposite is true

Perhaps you are right and I did not teach you enough about the subject , though that's no excuse  for not learning about it on your own. 

From the Washington Post. 

"Merkel said that NATO membership would have damaged Ukraine and that Putin would have seen it as akin to a “declaration of war,” according to Deutsche Welle.  "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/08/angela-merkel-interview-russia-ukraine-war-nato/

 

"Russian anger over the planned expansion is also beginning to expose potentially damaging rifts within NATO itself. At the Bucharest summit, despite some last minute arm-twisting from President Bush, European leaders -- wary of alienating an increasingly assertive Russia -- denied coveted pre-membership status to Georgia and Ukraine, at least for the time being.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy
Merkel and Sarkozy led the opposition to expansion plansImage: AP
Led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Europeans claimed that such a move could destabilize an already volatile region on Russia's southern flank."

https://www.dw.com/en/nato-expansion-a-model-for-stability-or-a-grab-for-power/a-3283800

 

As to the rest of your comments , I dont even know how to address them

Do you dispute that after the fall of the Soviet Union  the US was the Unipolar hegemon of the world?

Do you dispute that the rise of China threatens to create a bipolar condition?

Do you dispute that there are three great  powers in the world  . The US, China and a distant Third Russia?

Do you dispute that the existence of  three great powers threaten to create a Multipolar condition?

Is your contention that the US would like a Multipolar condition where two of those opposing powers are adversarial?

I know how you might try to weasel out of this. You might say , "no I dont but I dispute that the US  induced Russia to attack for those reasons. 

Then why do you think the US did? do you think that the US spend close to half a trillion dollars for altruistic reasons., and to defend  Ukraine's tight to join whatever alliance it want's ? If you do then I better not say what I think.

 

This is the last thing I say to you on this subject , If I have not been able to convince you by now, I don't think there is anything I can say that would.

 

So Have a nice day "dear. "

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

In the words of  me 

I am not your "Dear" and if you think so, go <Deleted> yourself 

Perhaps you are right and I did not teach you enough about the subject , though that's no excuse  for not learning about it on your own. 

 

Your misplaced arrogance and delusion that you are some sort of oracle dispatching wisdom from on high is laughable. Your inability to accept basic logical reasoning illustrates that.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

From the Washington Post. 

"Merkel said that NATO membership would have damaged Ukraine and that Putin would have seen it as akin to a “declaration of war,” according to Deutsche Welle.  "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/08/angela-merkel-interview-russia-ukraine-war-nato/

 

"Russian anger over the planned expansion is also beginning to expose potentially damaging rifts within NATO itself. At the Bucharest summit, despite some last minute arm-twisting from President Bush, European leaders -- wary of alienating an increasingly assertive Russia -- denied coveted pre-membership status to Georgia and Ukraine, at least for the time being.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy
Merkel and Sarkozy led the opposition to expansion plansImage: AP
Led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Europeans claimed that such a move could destabilize an already volatile region on Russia's southern flank."

https://www.dw.com/en/nato-expansion-a-model-for-stability-or-a-grab-for-power/a-3283800

 

Initially you made the factually incorrect claim that France and Germany were in favour of NATO expansion and cited this as evidence to support your theory. You now cite the fact that France and Germany were against NATO expansion as evidence in favour of your theory.

 

I'll be generous and call this muddled thinking.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

As to the rest of your comments , I dont even know how to address them

 

That is unsurprisingly given that you have been unable to address any of my other points up to now.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you dispute that after the fall of the Soviet Union  the US was the Unipolar hegemon of the world?

 

No

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you dispute that the rise of China threatens to create a bipolar condition?

 

Yes. Imo it goes further than that i.e the rise of India, the increased political power of the EU as a bloc, the formation of other regional blocks.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you dispute that there are three great  powers in the world  . The US, China and a distant Third Russia?

 

See previous paragraph.

 

Imo the US remains the dominant force. China's economic woes are a setback to its' ambitions. Russia's influence was waning which imo is one - perhaps, "the" - reason why it invaded Ukraine.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Do you dispute that the existence of  three great powers threaten to create a Multipolar condition?

 

I dispute the idea that three is the magic number.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Is your contention that the US would like a Multipolar condition where two of those opposing powers are adversarial?

 

 

No.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

I know how you might try to weasel out of this.

 

 

As you can see from the above, unlike you I address questions directly.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You might say , "no I dont but I dispute that the US  induced Russia to attack for those reasons. 

 

For once, you are correct. I do dispute your contention that the US induced Russia to attack Ukraine.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Then why do you think the US did?

 

 

It didn't.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

do you think that the US spend close to half a trillion dollars for altruistic reasons., and to defend  Ukraine's tight to join whatever alliance it want's ?

 

 

No. Generally speaking, I think that in common with other nations, the US acts according to what it perceives as its' own best interests.

 

So, now that we have established all that, how does destabilizing central Europe help protect (increase?) US hegemony? In a previous post, I posed the following question to you which, unsurprisingly, remains unanswered:

"What has been achieved from a US perspective (by this war)? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve .... and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine?"

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

If you do then I better not say what I think.

 

 

Almost certainly the wiser thing that you have said. It's just a shame that you couldn't have adopted this position at the outset.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

This is the last thing I say to you on this subject ,

 

 

Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If I have not been able to convince you by now, I don't think there is anything I can say that would.

 

 

You're almost certainly correct. I feel that that we might part on a positive note.

 

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

So Have a nice day "dear. "

 

 

 

 

 

You too, honey.

[Rimmer]

A flame has been removed  

Please see our Community Standards

[GypsyT]

Ukraine should give up all areas with Russian minded fools and make a new border. Let them be Russkis and suffer...

 

Then, quickly, get all support they can get to build a real strong defense lines and join NATO and EU.

 

Time's running out. Better take a deal 1/2 senile Prez and EU can offer than loose everything if/when certified nut takes over.

 

[Pouatchee]

On 12/6/2023 at 10:43 AM, ballpoint said:

"The people of England will curse themselves for having preferred ruin from Churchill to peace from Hitler."

 

William Joyce, broadcasting August 2, 1940, as Lord Haw Haw.

 

I am not getting involved on the debate about ukraine nor israel. HOWEVER, i am trying to figure out your quote here because...

 

William Brooke Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw-Haw, was an American-born fascist and Nazi propaganda broadcaster during the Second World War   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce

 

oftimes people here make jokes and the other AN members dont get it. obviously william joyce was not being tongue in cheek here. so was this quote being used to be funny? tongue in cheek? or are you really serious?

 

i dont trust ANY politician because none of them are honest, hence who knows the real agendas behind these wars. I do know one thing... and that is nothing good comes from war unless you are on the side that pulls the strings, or as others commented, the ones who are building the weapons.

 

 

[ozimoron]

Trump-Putin 'sinister special relationship' has corrupted conservatives

 

"From 2015 to 2017, Republican opinion shifted markedly in a pro-Russia and pro-Putin direction," Frum explains.

 

"In 2017, more than a third of surveyed Republicans expressed favorable views of Putin.

 

By 2019, Carlson — who had risen to the top place among Fox News hosts—was regularly promoting pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian messages to his conservative audience..

 

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-putin-2666626177/

[GypsyT]

It started here; https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/16poland.html

(You can't see w/o AdBlock)

"Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal

•  

•  
•  

•  

By Thom Shanker and Nicholas Kulish

• Aug. 15, 2008

WASHINGTON The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia."

I remember tensions were very high in Europe.

US was pushing ideas trough "no matter what".

I didn't know then or now if it was the right thing to do.