Europe Braces for Escalation: Germany Mobilizes NATO Troops Amid Putin's Nuclear Threats

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Today, we have the Neocons and they've done nothing but bankrupt America with one failed venture after another

Ah, but very very profitable for the 1%. So from their point of view probably a resounding success.

Sorry about all the dead people though. Being collateral damage is a bi*ch, ain't it?

[0ffshore360]

7 hours ago, transam said:

Russia (CCCP) negotiated with Hitler, what happened.........

It is very hard to negotiate when you are dealing with a tyrant, it seems the only way out is to show them they are on a loser, the nuke thing doesn't come into the equation either, nobody wins, even Putin knows that, though he may want to go out with a bang, as he is on a sticky wicket with his own.........

You are of course ignoring the policy of  British PM Neville Chamberlain in 1938 that ignored/allowed  Hitler's expansionist quest and signed a "non aggression pact ?

 

[0ffshore360]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, but very very profitable for the 1%. So from their point of view probably a resounding success.

Sorry about all the dead people though. Being collateral damage is a bi*ch, ain't it?

Possibly only just a global start ! Being a dead victim of business failures is.......dead!

[GammaGlobulin]

I'm hoping for WW3.

This is really the ONLY way to save the planet.

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

You are of course ignoring the policy of  British PM Neville Chamberlain in 1938 that ignored/allowed  Hitler's expansionist quest and signed a "non aggression pact ?

 

No.........

[transam]

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I'm hoping for WW3.

This is really the ONLY way to save the planet.

 

Well, at least you have confirmed you are a fruitcake.........🙄

[RayC]

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

At one point, I think they actually had an agreement initialed and ready to go.  Then, Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and were all know how that turned out.  The agreement didn't go forward and hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian casualties resulted from the continuation of hostilities. 

 

I am usually more than willing to blame Johnson for negative events but there is no evidence to support the notion that he scuppered a Russia - Ukraine agreement, which was " .. initialed and ready to go",  for the simple reason that no such agreement ever existed.

[GammaGlobulin]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

Well, at least you have confirmed you are a fruitcake.........🙄

 

Scorched Earth Policy is now the only way to rid the Earth of Idiocy.

 

 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Scorched Earth Policy is now the only way to rid the Earth of Idiocy.

 

 

Yep, I was right............

[GammaGlobulin]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Yep, I was right............

 

Thank you for remembering my recent mention of my glorious fruitcake...because....

 

I had begun to think that nobody ever read my Topics.

 

Wishing you a happy family Thanksgiving celebration.

 

Take care.

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Thank you for remembering my recent mention of my glorious fruitcake...because....

 

I had begun to think that nobody ever read my Topics.

 

Wishing you a happy family Thanksgiving celebration.

 

Take care.

 

 

Never had a family Thanksgiving celebration, wouldn't know who to thank, my dad perhaps....🤔

[jacob29]

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

I conceded your point for the purpose of argument.  

Which doesn't help me at all to understand why you keep assigning the majority of the blame on the west.

 

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

I'm not the one playing the blame game here.  That's you, that's the trick of the Western leaders these days

 

You just did it again.

 

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

And that's the problem. That's why this war is escalating. And that's why this issue is now moot, in my mind.

You believe Putin was goaded into starting this war. Ok. Does this absolve Putin of all culpability? Ignore his nuclear threats and actions like bringing NK into the war, because US engaged in behaviours that upset him? At what point do you start being critical of Putin, or is that not possible for historical reasons?

 

Let me paraphrase your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong - Ukraine should cede to the demands of Russia, as global security (risk of nuclear escalation) is a greater concern than the sovereignty of Ukraine. 

 

3 hours ago, jas007 said:

And now they've upped the ante and have Russia as their target.

Russia hasn't been targeted, what risk was Russia facing? You can't seriously believe a ground invasion of Russia was in the works.

 

If Taiwan is invaded, is that going to be the fault of the west as well?

[GammaGlobulin]

26 minutes ago, transam said:

Never had a family Thanksgiving celebration, wouldn't know who to thank, my dad perhaps....🤔

 

Perhaps.

 

But....IMHO....not very likely.

 

Feel for you, Sir.

 

My dad was a drunkard.

 

[jas007]

6 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

Which doesn't help me at all to understand why you keep assigning the majority of the blame on the west.

 

 

You just did it again.

 

You believe Putin was goaded into starting this war. Ok. Does this absolve Putin of all culpability? Ignore his nuclear threats and actions like bringing NK into the war, because US engaged in behaviours that upset him? At what point do you start being critical of Putin, or is that not possible for historical reasons?

 

Let me paraphrase your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong - Ukraine should cede to the demands of Russia, as global security (risk of nuclear escalation) is a greater concern than the sovereignty of Ukraine. 

 

Russia hasn't been targeted, what risk was Russia facing? You can't seriously believe a ground invasion of Russia was in the works.

 

If Taiwan is invaded, is that going to be the fault of the west as well?

You miss my point, I'm afraid.  My point is that this conflict is now at an impasse of sorts.  What is needed is diplomacy, not more escalation, not more threats.. What's needed is a negotiated settlement. That kind of outcome does not "cede" anything to Russia.  That's the point of diplomacy.  An agreement is reached that settles the matter in a way that's agreeable to all parties concerned.  If you think a diplomatic solution is somehow cedes anything to Russia, you don't understand how diplomacy works.  

 

As for the Neocons planning a "ground invasion"?  Again, a red herring.  The Neocons and the likes of Victoria Nuland have had Russia in their sights for long time.  Hostility to Russia became part and parcel of US foreign policy along with the apparent desire for a war that never ends.  Do I need to make a list of all the failures? And yet nobody ever stops to question the madness lately.  

[khunJam]

1 minute ago, jas007 said:

You miss my point, I'm afraid.  My point is that this conflict is now at an impasse of sorts.  What is needed is diplomacy, not more escalation, not more threats.. What's needed is a negotiated settlement. That kind of outcome does not "cede" anything to Russia.  That's the point of diplomacy.  An agreement is reached that settles the matter in a way that's agreeable to all parties concerned.  If you think a diplomatic solution is somehow cedes anything to Russia, you don't understand how diplomacy works.  

 

As for the Neocons planning a "ground invasion"?  Again, a red herring.  The Neocons and the likes of Victoria Nuland have had Russia in their sights for long time.  Hostility to Russia became part and parcel of US foreign policy along with the apparent desire for a war that never ends.  Do I need to make a list of all the failures? And yet nobody ever stops to question the madness lately.  

Well said but the war mongers here in the neighborhood don’t agree. 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I am usually more than willing to blame Johnson for negative events but there is no evidence to support the notion that he scuppered a Russia - Ukraine agreement, which was " .. initialed and ready to go",  for the simple reason that no such agreement ever existed.

I'm pretty sure I saw an initialed copy of the proposed agreement online sometime recently.  I read all sorts of stuff, so no telling where I saw it.  

[jacob29]

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

You miss my point, I'm afraid.

 My point is that this conflict is now at an impasse of sorts.

I'm afraid I wasn't interested in your idea on how to solve the conflict, and you well know it since I've asked the same question several times now.

 

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

That kind of outcome does not "cede" anything to Russia.  That's the point of diplomacy.

Ukraine isn't willing to cede territory without a good fight, and that's true of pretty well all nation states. Give me a good reason why they should? Russia is willing to nuke the world if they don't gain territory, and you appear to not to be critical of that in the slightest?

 

2 hours ago, jas007 said:

The Neocons and the likes of Victoria Nuland have had Russia in their sights for long time. 

Don't be vague. In their sights how, if not a ground invasion. Please be specific, in their sights has a broad scope. What did Russia fear so much they were compelled to invade a state?

[jas007]

6 hours ago, jacob29 said:

I'm afraid I wasn't interested in your idea on how to solve the conflict, and you well know it since I've asked the same question several times now.

 

Ukraine isn't willing to cede territory without a good fight, and that's true of pretty well all nation states. Give me a good reason why they should? Russia is willing to nuke the world if they don't gain territory, and you appear to not to be critical of that in the slightest?

 

Don't be vague. In their sights how, if not a ground invasion. Please be specific, in their sights has a broad scope. What did Russia fear so much they were compelled to invade a state?

Why don't your forget about this discussion for now and go study up on the history of diplomacy, why it's important, why it works well, and what it means when diplomats reach agreements.  

[jas007]

14 hours ago, khunJam said:

Well said but the war mongers here in the neighborhood don’t agree. 

Most of them don't understand.  They've been well and truly brainwashed by the mainstream propaganda machines, and that's the extent of their understanding.  Furthermore, most of them live in an echo chamber.  They hear the "narrative" repeated time and again, and that's all they know. So they regurgitate the "narrative."  

[transam]

6 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Most of them don't understand.  They've been well and truly brainwashed by the mainstream propaganda machines, and that's the extent of their understanding.  Furthermore, most of them live in an echo chamber.  They hear the "narrative" repeated time and again, and that's all they know. So they regurgitate the "narrative."  

I thought you were describing yourself for a mo....🤪

 

As you seem to be know it all, what don't we understand..?

 

I mean, I/we, understand that Putin invaded a neighbour killing thousands of civilians, even taking children away.

So what else don't we understand for YOU to whitewash Putin's crimes, when many, many countries have come to Ukraine's aid.....?   🤔

[RayC]

15 hours ago, jas007 said:

I'm pretty sure I saw an initialed copy of the proposed agreement online sometime recently.  I read all sorts of stuff, so no telling where I saw it.  

 

Then I imagine that it was a fake. If it wasn't it would have been all over the press and TV.

[candide]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Most of them don't understand.  They've been well and truly brainwashed by the mainstream propaganda machines, and that's the extent of their understanding.  Furthermore, most of them live in an echo chamber.  They hear the "narrative" repeated time and again, and that's all they know. So they regurgitate the "narrative."  

Suuuure! And it's not like pro-Putin westerners would be brainwashed by Russian State propaganda on RT, relayed by the RW social media echo chamber and politicians like MTG!

Oh wait! 🤣

 

[jas007]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Then I imagine that it was a fake. If it wasn't it would have been all over the press and TV.

Of course it wouldn't be "all over" the mainstream press and TV. Those media platforms are all part of the same propaganda machine.  They don't necessarily report the news anymore.  They report what they want people to hear.  There's quite a difference. 

 

Anyway, if I see it again, I'll post a link. 

[jas007]

12 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course it wouldn't be "all over" the mainstream press and TV. Those media platforms are all part of the same propaganda machine.  They don't necessarily report the news anymore.  They report what they want people to hear.  There's quite a difference. 

 

Anyway, if I see it again, I'll post a link. 

 OK.  Apparently, the agreement actually existed at one point, according to multiple sources.  Russian Media, and the US propaganda publications Foreign Affairs and the New York Tines.

 

I'll post some links, if that's allowed. Otherwise, people can surely look it up themselves.  The Sputnik article has la link to what was published in The NY Times. 

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240615/nyt-claims-to-reveal-2022-russia-ukraine-peace-drafts-key-details-and-missed-opportunities-1118975487.html?ysclid=m4102jrc4q895864198

 

Also, From the US publication Foreign Affairs in 2022.  I wasn't able to obtain a link. Maybe people can find it.  It's a lengthy article, but towards the end the article references observations by "senior Administration officials" about the agreement and why it was scuttled. 

 

So, pick which propaganda you want to believe.  But both sides seem to agree that there was a tentative agreement. 

 

  

The World Putin Wants

How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About the Future

By Fiona Hill and Angela Stent

September/October 2022

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Of course it wouldn't be "all over" the mainstream press and TV. Those media platforms are all part of the same propaganda machine.  They don't necessarily report the news anymore.  They report what they want people to hear.  There's quite a difference. 

 

Anyway, if I see it again, I'll post a link. 

 

21 minutes ago, jas007 said:

 OK.  Apparently, the agreement actually existed at one point, according to multiple sources.  Russian Media, and the US propaganda publications Foreign Affairs and the New York Tines.

 

I'll post some links, if that's allowed. Otherwise, people can surely look it up themselves.  The Sputnik article has la link to what was published in The NY Times. 

 

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240615/nyt-claims-to-reveal-2022-russia-ukraine-peace-drafts-key-details-and-missed-opportunities-1118975487.html?ysclid=m4102jrc4q895864198

 

Also, From the US publication Foreign Affairs in 2022.  I wasn't able to obtain a link. Maybe people can find it.  It's a lengthy article, but towards the end the article references observations by "senior Administration officials" about the agreement and why it was scuttled. 

 

So, pick which propaganda you want to believe.  But both sides seem to agree that there was a tentative agreement. 

 

  

The World Putin Wants

How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About the Future

By Fiona Hill and Angela Stent

September/October 2022

 

Presumably this is the NYT article to which Sputnik is refering (and distorting)?

 

The paper described by the NYT does not remotely resemble a proposed, initialised agreement. It is more akin to 'Notes of a meeting', which illustrate areas of fundamental major disagreement.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

 

[transam]

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

Of course it wouldn't be "all over" the mainstream press and TV. Those media platforms are all part of the same propaganda machine.  They don't necessarily report the news anymore.  They report what they want people to hear.  There's quite a difference. 

 

Anyway, if I see it again, I'll post a link. 

I feel sorry for you............🤔

[jas007]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

I feel sorry for you............🤔

Don't feel sorry for me.  I'm doing good.  Anyway, people can think whatever they want. It doesn't matter. 

[jas007]

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

 

Presumably this is the NYT article to which Sputnik is refering (and distorting)?

 

The paper described by the NYT does not remotely resemble a proposed, initialised agreement. It is more akin to 'Notes of a meeting', which illustrate areas of fundamental major disagreement.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

 

 This isn't really what I saw the other day.  Just what I could find in one minute.  I'll keep looking for what I saw. 

[jacob29]

12 hours ago, jas007 said:

Why don't your forget about this discussion for now and go study up on the history of diplomacy, why it's important, why it works well, and what it means when diplomats reach agreements.  

Why don't you show some conviction when asked for details?

 

No matter how awful the US was, is, or will be - that's not the concern of Ukraine, they're a sovereign state. If it's ok to invade Ukraine to gain diplomatic concessions, you work out what that means for Taiwan. You will probably be the first to blame the west for an invasion there. Eliminating accountability in no way helps diplomacy.

[jas007]

30 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

Why don't you show some conviction when asked for details?

 

No matter how awful the US was, is, or will be - that's not the concern of Ukraine, they're a sovereign state. If it's ok to invade Ukraine to gain diplomatic concessions, you work out what that means for Taiwan. You will probably be the first to blame the west for an invasion there. Eliminating accountability in no way helps diplomacy.

 The world is a messy place. Wars are messy.  Geopolitics is a power game.  It always has been, and it always will be. And for a long time, diplomats have been a necessary part of maintaining peace within a framework of international law, treaties, and negotiated settlements. A rules based order, as they say. It exists for a reason.  It's obvious you don't understand diplomacy.  

 

When agreements are reached by way of diplomacy, such agreements become a legally supported resolution to, for example, a  territorial dispute.  The sovereignty of both parties is maintained. That's the important distinction. It's an agreement made within a legal framework. On the other hand, if a sovereign nation cedes territory simply because they've been confronted with  brute force, that sets the stage for more conflict.  It becomes a never ending cycle.  With a diplomatic agreement, there's some chance that the peace will be maintained.