ukraine and russia …. which side are you on?

[Deadstick]

This is correct, and the "revolution" in 2014 was a color revolution engineered by the US through it's proxy the UN to start a proxy war with Russia. The same situation as the US proxy war with Iran using Israel as the catalyst. I don't know why more people can't see through the bullshit to understand this, but it seems to always work here. Want to start shit with China? Taiwan is your ticket.

I think many of them do see through it but just can't bring themselves to face the fact they are on the side of the bad guys, i mean Americans have been brought up to believe they are the good guys no matter what evidence they see with their own eyes to the contrary, to a lesser extent it's the same in my Country, one would have thought after the horror of Vietnam a big change in thinking among the American people would have taken place, unfortunately the brainwashing is so deep it has not changed the thinking of many, and don't forget Hollywood and it's influence, as for Taiwan the election result is in, the ruling party have won, so that will be one election the US won't be challenging like they do when their puppets lose, Taiwan is part of China that's the bottom line.

 

[alang1216]

Of course it's true, i am not talking about Stalin or Gorbachev i am talking about a Wartime Nazi collaborator, there are monunents to the thug in Ukraine, they have a national holiday to remember him.

Alas, history is not as simple as you seem to think. A Nazi document dated 25 November 1941 stated that "the Bandera Movement is preparing a revolt in the Reichskommissariat which has as its ultimate aim the establishment of an independent Ukraine. All functionaries of the Bandera Movement must be arrested at once and, after thorough interrogation, are to be liquidated".[75]

 

[Insaneworld]

Nato is the problem, it shouldn't even exist there is no reason for it to exist, after the USSR went the US and it's puppets had to find a reason for Nato to exist, they decided that was Russia and to a lesser extent Islamists, it's a money making scam and just a foreign legion for US global hegemony, that hegemony is being challenged, Putin didn't wake up one morning and say today is a good day to invade Ukraine, there is a back story that some people ignore, if i had been Russia i would have gone into Ukraine after the Western instigated Coup and the Nazi thugs were turned loose on the people in Donbass, if they had many more people would be alive today if they had but they waited for 8 years and thousands dead.

That is one perspective...

If you look at the history of subjugation of Russia in eastern Europe, the 'back story' you mention, you would understand why a sovereign country from that region would seek to join NATO. The US loves to extend its influence, certainly, but it is only possible because of a long history of Russian aggression. NATO is not JUST a project of US power, it is ALSO an alliance that smaller countries worked to join, since they value the stability and security that the US can provide, and they are rightfully afraid of Russian subjugation, since it has happened to them before... THAT is why NATO is successful in expanding.

Regardless, the present is as it is. Ideally, we could go back to 1991, and find a better solution than NATO expansion. But unless the US is willing to concede to putin's ultimatum, let go of its influence in Europe and suffer the geopolitical consequences that might come from that, on the dollar for instance, it will have to oppose Russia.

 

[Ringo]

Cop is right

 

[Silver Cat]

That is one perspective...

If you look at the history of subjugation of Russia in eastern Europe, the 'back story' you mention, you would understand why a sovereign country from that region would seek to join NATO. The US loves to extend its influence, certainly, but it is only possible because of a long history of Russian aggression. NATO is not JUST a project of US power, it is ALSO an alliance that smaller countries worked to join, since they value the stability and security that the US can provide, and they are rightfully afraid of Russian subjugation, since it has happened to them before... THAT is why NATO is successful in expanding.

Regardless, the present is as it is. Ideally, we could go back to 1991, and find a better solution than NATO expansion. But unless the US is willing to concede to putin's ultimatum, let go of its influence in Europe and suffer the geopolitical consequences that might come from that, on the dollar for instance, it will have to oppose Russia.

The better solution for the USA in 2024 is dissolution of NATO. Europe doesn't pay for their defense, neither with money nor with blood. They decrease safety of the USA, they steal American money. What is more important, it significantly decrease our freedom of actions. America should be free, wealthy and safe. Let's make America great again, and only then decide if we should support any European, Asian or African force.

 

[Silver Cat]

That is one perspective...

If you look at the history of subjugation of Russia in eastern Europe, the 'back story' you mention, you would understand why a sovereign country from that region would seek to join NATO. The US loves to extend its influence, certainly, but it is only possible because of a long history of Russian aggression. NATO is not JUST a project of US power, it is ALSO an alliance that smaller countries worked to join, since they value the stability and security that the US can provide, and they are rightfully afraid of Russian subjugation, since it has happened to them before... THAT is why NATO is successful in expanding.

The problem is, that by winning small countries, we are losing big countries. Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland - it's nice... But Russia, China, India, Brazil - they are much more important for our wealth and safety.

 

[Ringo]

"Kyiv is a Russian city. That is why the Russians did not turn it into ruins, as Israel did with the Gaza Strip,” - French writer & journalist, graduate of the Military School in Saint-Cyr, Doctor of Political Sciences Xavier Moreau. Is that clear?

 

[Zebra]

"Kyiv is a Russian city. That is why the Russians did not turn it into ruins, as Israel did with the Gaza Strip,” - French writer & journalist, graduate of the Military School in Saint-Cyr, Doctor of Political Sciences Xavier Moreau. Is that clear?

Kyiv is the ukraine spelling

in German … Kiew

 

[Ringo]

 

[Insaneworld]

The better solution for the USA in 2024 is dissolution of NATO. Europe doesn't pay for their defense, neither with money nor with blood. They decrease safety of the USA, they steal American money. What is more important, it significantly decrease our freedom of actions. America should be free, wealthy and safe. Let's make America great again, and only then decide if we should support any European, Asian or African force.

Much of eastern Europe is not like this though, Poland is not like this at all, they spent over 2% of their gdp on defense for years, and apparently will spend over twice that in 2024.

You can still argue it isn't worth it for the US, and like I said, could we go BACK to 1991 I would agree with you. But the loss of standing on the US alone would be catastrophic. I think that path ends, basically, with a completely isolationist America that has zero influence outside its borders unless it is willing to use force directly. Why? Because dissolution of NATO in 2024 is complete capitulation, it is a retreat that China would pounce on in the context of Taiwan, the south china sea, etc, since it would see that America's long standing alliances and promises are meaningless.

Basically, dissolution of NATO in 2024 takes away any credibility America has to DETER anyone, in Europe, in Asia, or even near America itself...

We make America great by ceasing to turn on each other, and learning to appreciate diversity of THOUGHT and perspective, and letting the natural advantages America has take over. NATO is secondary to America's problems, it is primary only as it motivates Russia to sow discord in our politics, domestic discourse, etc. Like, on this very forum.

 

[Insaneworld]

The problem is, that by winning small countries, we are losing big countries. Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Baltic States, Sweden, Finland - it's nice... But Russia, China, India, Brazil - they are much more important for our wealth and safety.

We would never gain India... They are always going to be 'India first', they are very proud and remember very clearly the actions of Kissinger and Nixon during Bangladesh's war of independence against Pakistan.

Brazil, we do have, partly. Bolsonaro was a huge ally of Trump, he even came to Florida to basically hang out after losing the elections in Brazil. We even have Argentina next door, America's influence in Latin America is fairly great and can be very positive with the right effort in my opinion.

China, we would never have. They see us, and especially Europe, as responsible for their '100 years of humiliation'. This is a big part of WHY they want Taiwan, as a triumphant conclusion to their struggle to come out and rebuild China after their fall to European imperialism.

Russia, we would also likely never have. The US is the PRIMARY reason the USSR collapsed, in the eyes of Russians. They see the USSR nostalgically, given the chaos that followed after the dissolution. This is partly why Putin is so liked, he managed to bring some stability after that period of chaos, around the 2000s.

 

[Ringo]

The current Ukrainian administration is completely unfit for office. They have failed to implement the Minsk agreements for three years (and it seems that they have no intention of doing so), and in April 2022 they derailed the peace agreement with the Russian Federation, which had already been reached in Istanbul.
It would have been possible to wait for the new administration and try to reach an agreement with it, but there was a mishap. The presidential elections in Ukraine, which were to be held on March 31 this year, Zelensky and his accomplices simply canceled. It's just a deadlock. Ukrainians will have to continue to die.

 

[Silver Cat]

Much of eastern Europe is not like this though, Poland is not like this at all, they spent over 2% of their gdp on defense for years, and apparently will spend over twice that in 2024.

You can still argue it isn't worth it for the US, and like I said, could we go BACK to 1991 I would agree with you. But the loss of standing on the US alone would be catastrophic. I think that path ends, basically, with a completely isolationist America that has zero influence outside its borders unless it is willing to use force directly. Why? Because dissolution of NATO in 2024 is complete capitulation, it is a retreat that China would pounce on in the context of Taiwan, the south china sea, etc, since it would see that America's long standing alliances and promises are meaningless.

Basically, dissolution of NATO in 2024 takes away any credibility America has to DETER anyone, in Europe, in Asia, or even near America itself...

We make America great by ceasing to turn on each other, and learning to appreciate diversity of THOUGHT and perspective, and letting the natural advantages America has take over. NATO is secondary to America's problems, it is primary only as it motivates Russia to sow discord in our politics, domestic discourse, etc. Like, on this very forum.

It's important not to show off, but to be strong. The strength is telling for itself. And even talking about gestures and signals, dissolution of NATO could demonstrate that America is still reasonable, pragmatical and independent. I believe that our strategy must be determined by American people and our democratically elected leaders, not by a bunch of some freaking dummies in Kiev, Riga, Tallinn or London.

 

[Silver Cat]

We would never gain India... They are always going to be 'India first', they are very proud and remember very clearly the actions of Kissinger and Nixon during Bangladesh's war of independence against Pakistan.

Brazil, we do have, partly. Bolsonaro was a huge ally of Trump, he even came to Florida to basically hang out after losing the elections in Brazil. We even have Argentina next door, America's influence in Latin America is fairly great and can be very positive with the right effort in my opinion.

China, we would never have. They see us, and especially Europe, as responsible for their '100 years of humiliation'. This is a big part of WHY they want Taiwan, as a triumphant conclusion to their struggle to come out and rebuild China after their fall to European imperialism.

Russia, we would also likely never have. The US is the PRIMARY reason the USSR collapsed, in the eyes of Russians. They see the USSR nostalgically, given the chaos that followed after the dissolution. This is partly why Putin is so liked, he managed to bring some stability after that period of chaos, around the 2000s.

I don't mean to have them as formal vassals or something. We may have an international order based on the mutual respect and common interests, based on the cooperation of the Great Powers, not confrontation. And we still can do it.

What is safer - to be strong and peaceful, or to be weak and aggressive ?

 

[gipper]

I don't mean to have them as formal vassals or something. We may have an international order based on the mutual respect and common interests, based on the cooperation of the Great Powers, not confrontation. And we still can do it.

What is safer - to be strong and peaceful, or to be weak and aggressive ?

I don’t think this is possible with the people in power in DC. It seems every administration no matter which side of the duopoly, is infested with neocons. Certainly Joe’s administration is entirely controlled by neocons who are desperate to continue American hegemony on the entire world.

Cooperation and mutual respect can’t exist when the US is intent on imperialistic objectives. Our foreign policy appears to lack any desire for peaceful interactions. It’s either you relent or we kill you.

 

[Insaneworld]

It's important not to show off, but to be strong. The strength is telling for itself. And even talking about gestures and signals, dissolution of NATO could demonstrate that America is still reasonable, pragmatical and independent. I believe that our strategy must be determined by American people and our democratically elected leaders, not by a bunch of some freaking dummies in Kiev, Riga, Tallinn or London.

Dissolution after Putin's ultimatum (and subsequent invasion) IS capitulation, no way around it I believe.

And our foreign policy IS determined by Americans, Kiev is dependent on us, Poland basically tries to mirror our foreign policy, they even went into Iraq! Kiev is in even more chaos right now (than 6 months ago) because the aid that allowed Ukraine to fight is less forthcoming. If anything, the silly games of American politicians affect our foreign policy and the policy of third countries. They will pick some domestic issue, link it to foreign policy, and then we all get gridlocked and into more chaos.

I don't mean to have them as formal vassals or something. We may have an international order based on the mutual respect and common interests, based on the cooperation of the Great Powers, not confrontation. And we still can do it.

What is safer - to be strong and peaceful, or to be weak and aggressive ?

What defines a 'Great power'? Is this a historical title? Or does it correspond to a certain level of capability?

I ask because, to anyone proposing this kind of international 'order', the decisions of a 'great power' are basically law in their respective sphere of influence, while the 'weak' in that sphere suffer whatever they must. The role of a smaller power in this view is to submit to the 'great powers', or else they will be subjugated by force while everyone else sees and goes 'well... their sphere influence'. That's what putin tries right now, and that's exactly what he did in Chechnya 24 or so years ago... Granted, the USA has done basically the same thing.

Putting the question of definition aside, as well as the question of limits of the respective spheres of influence; the only value such a system has, in my view, is as far as the 'great powers' act in the interest of the populations in their spheres, as far as they allow them to prosper and be free. The USA has many times been destructive in the world, it is so far from perfect or moral, but despite this, we are the most humanistic and most powerful empire that has existed.

To add to this, the Asian + European + African continents dwarf the Americas. If America cedes all its influence to China, Russia and India in their spheres, I believe the people in charge of China or Russia would eventually try to unify this power. Given what the people in charge of those countries justify (in law) doing to their people, I really don't want to see this scenario and I believe it is likely. Granted, IF the governments of China or Russia were more humanistic, less authoritarian, then I would feel more comfortable about the US ceding global influence. But until that happens, I don't think dissolving NATO is a good idea for America in the long term.

 

[Silver Cat]

Dissolution after Putin's ultimatum (and subsequent invasion) IS capitulation, no way around it I believe.

And our foreign policy IS determined by Americans, Kiev is dependent on us, Poland basically tries to mirror our foreign policy, they even went into Iraq! Kiev is in even more chaos right now (than 6 months ago) because the aid that allowed Ukraine to fight is less forthcoming. If anything, the silly games of American politicians affect our foreign policy and the policy of third countries. They will pick some domestic issue, link it to foreign policy, and then we all get gridlocked and into more chaos.



What defines a 'Great power'? Is this a historical title? Or does it correspond to a certain level of capability?

I ask because, to anyone proposing this kind of international 'order', the decisions of a 'great power' are basically law in their respective sphere of influence, while the 'weak' in that sphere suffer whatever they must. The role of a smaller power in this view is to submit to the 'great powers', or else they will be subjugated by force while everyone else sees and goes 'well... their sphere influence'. That's what putin tries right now, and that's exactly what he did in Chechnya 24 or so years ago... Granted, the USA has done basically the same thing.

Putting the question of definition aside, as well as the question of limits of the respective spheres of influence; the only value such a system has, in my view, is as far as the 'great powers' act in the interest of the populations in their spheres, as far as they allow them to prosper and be free. The USA has many times been destructive in the world, it is so far from perfect or moral, but despite this, we are the most humanistic and most powerful empire that has existed.

To add to this, the Asian + European + African continents dwarf the Americas. If America cedes all its influence to China, Russia and India in their spheres, I believe the people in charge of China or Russia would eventually try to unify this power. Given what the people in charge of those countries justify (in law) doing to their people, I really don't want to see this scenario and I believe it is likely. Granted, IF the governments of China or Russia were more humanistic, less authoritarian, then I would feel more comfortable about the US ceding global influence. But until that happens, I don't think dissolving NATO is a good idea for America in the long term.

You see, Russia and China also see US as inhumane and authorian. It's more about prejudice and propaganda, than about actual political systems. Any state have to find proper combination of sticks and carrots, and both Russia and China are as much humanistic as possible in their circumstances.

I do not suggest the US ceding global influence. I do suggest increasing of the US global influence, just not in that stupid way of NATO expansion and global confrontation. Independent and powerful America will have more capabilities to influence in the really important questions in the whole world.

May be, it will be more useful to play deglobalisation and regionalisation. May be not, we'll divide not regions, but spheres of competence and will find a win-win-win solution. But to find any positive solution we need freedom, first of all, intellectual freedom to think and discuss about all possible scenarios, and political freedom to decide what we should do. We should not be the hostages of some European freaks. And then, then we should have power and actual capabilities to do whatever we decided to do.

 

[Insaneworld]

You see, Russia and China also see US as inhumane and authorian. It's more about prejudice and propaganda, than about actual political systems. Any state have to find proper combination of sticks and carrots, and both Russia and China are as much humanistic as possible in their circumstances.

I completely agree, there is a lack of trust on both sides. But we can look to history to try and gain a better view here, to see which states are more authoritarian. For example, one of the people I most admire is Eleanor Roosevelt, because she (as First Lady) pushed for the Universal declaration of Human Rights around 1945. As a little kid I heard about 'human rights' in the news, from adults sometimes, I figured 'there exists such a thing as human rights'. It was only later that I learned it was the USA, and specifically Eleanor Roosevelt, that was responsible for it. This is NOT something that has happened before in history, at least to the same degree I think, that humanist ideas could make a significant piece of foreign policy of a state, to the point that respect for individual human life is emphasized like that.

Now, both the USSR and the USA (and China) used brutal means at times to get their way, drone strikes kill thousands of innocent people abroad for example. And to an extent, the USA selectively increases/decreases support for these ideals and compromises them for other interests. But neither China nor the USSR/Russia make any effort to uphold human rights or freedom, at all. They are not shy about putting political protestors in jail, common people for 'picking quarrels', for investigating the wrong people. The USA has many issues, there is a long list of evidence of USA hypocrisy when it comes to human rights, but even so, no other state or empire has placed as much value as the USA on individual human life.

Again, I agree with you that we need to rebuild trust, but I personally think it has to be done with care, especially after putin violated much of that trust by invading Ukraine after talks in February. I think a negotiated peace, with some concessions on both sides can be made, and from there maybe some partial dissolution is possible down the line. But given that putin invaded Ukraine after that ultimatum, I think it has to be done slowly, or else it will hurt us, and even the credibility of the dollar as global reserve.

 

[Silver Cat]

I completely agree, there is a lack of trust on both sides. But we can look to history to try and gain a better view here, to see which states are more authoritarian. For example, one of the people I most admire is Eleanor Roosevelt, because she (as First Lady) pushed for the Universal declaration of Human Rights around 1945. As a little kid I heard about 'human rights' in the news, from adults sometimes, I figured 'there exists such a thing as human rights'. It was only later that I learned it was the USA, and specifically Eleanor Roosevelt, that was responsible for it. This is NOT something that has happened before in history, at least to the same degree I think, that humanist ideas could make a significant piece of foreign policy of a state, to the point that respect for individual human life is emphasized like that.

Really? Didn't you read Déclaration of Independence?
----------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
--------------
And, say, from the Russian point of view, the document named Russkaya Pravda (Russian Truth, Russian Law, or Russian Rights) was written in the begging of XI century and American talking about "human rights" is nothing but hypocrisy, while almost official position of the US government is that the Russians do not human rights at all (at least in Ukraine and Baltic states).

Now, both the USSR and the USA (and China) used brutal means at times to get their way, drone strikes kill thousands of innocent people abroad for example.

Everyone kills their enemies.

And to an extent, the USA selectively increases/decreases support for these ideals and compromises them for other interests. But neither China nor the USSR/Russia make any effort to uphold human rights or freedom, at all.

Actually, the Russians justificate their military operation with fighting for freedom. For their own freedom, of course.

They are not shy about putting political protestors in jail, common people for 'picking quarrels', for investigating the wrong people. The USA has many issues, there is a long list of evidence of USA hypocrisy when it comes to human rights, but even so, no other state or empire has placed as much value as the USA on individual human life.

From our point of view - yes, we are good, and all others are bad. But from the Russian point of view - Russians are fighting for freedom, and the USA and EU is a dark realm of oppression, ignorance and slavery.

Again, I agree with you that we need to rebuild trust, but I personally think it has to be done with care, especially after putin violated much of that trust by invading Ukraine after talks in February.

I think, that any "rebuild of trust" is simply impossible while the Russian people in NATO-controlled states are discriminated, oppressed and abused.

I think a negotiated peace, with some concessions on both sides can be made, and from there maybe some partial dissolution is possible down the line. But given that putin invaded Ukraine after that ultimatum, I think it has to be done slowly, or else it will hurt us, and even the credibility of the dollar as global reserve.

The question is how much time we have to settle this situation.

 

[Insaneworld]

Really? Didn't you read Déclaration of Independence?
----------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
--------------

Perhaps as a state goal, it isn't unique you're right. But it is an international declaration, which many third countries (even my native one) valued because of its international nature, and because of the prestige of the US. I heard about it thousands of miles away, even though my own country had nothing to do with it, and instead was mired in corruption and crime. Even then I still learned these ideas, they still reach there and helped shape my outlook on the world.

And, say, from the Russian point of view, the document named Russkaya Pravda (Russian Truth, Russian Law, or Russian Rights) was written in the begging of XI century and American talking about "human rights" is nothing but hypocrisy, while almost official position of the US government is that the Russians do not human rights at all (at least in Ukraine and Baltic states).

I think I need to emphasize the combination of influence/power, and the value placed on general human rights. What you bring up is interesting, I didn't know about that document, but the state that made it was conquered by the Mongols 800 years ago and did not have the means (like the USA does) to promote humanist ideals. Russia and China do have the means, but they don't have any interest in promoting human rights, even in their own country for their own people.

And I fully agree that the USA is hypocritical, this is a result of multiple interests competing to drive policy. Still, while I believe this interest in humanist ideals is missing in the other big countries, we need to do better, ultimately this would help all of us gain trust.

From our point of view - yes, we are good, and all others are bad. But from the Russian point of view - Russians are fighting for freedom, and the USA and EU is a dark realm of oppression, ignorance and slavery.

View attachment 889993

I think, that any "rebuild of trust" is simply impossible while the Russian people in NATO-controlled states are discriminated, oppressed and abused.

Well, while we aren't perfect, it isn't Americans leaving for Russia. We can do better, but even Russians know that the USA is not a hellscape of oppression, the world knows this, that's why we have a problem at the southern border, and why Europe has a problem itself with boats in the Mediterranean.

The question is how much time we have to settle this situation.

I don't know, but with so much political chaos, I'm not sure Ukraine will have much support for long. It could be that this year we see some serious negotiations and then peace.