Who can explain? Why western taxpayers must bleed for a failed corrupted dictatorship like Ukraine?And how long?

[Mac-7]

Are you member of military-industrial complex? Or do you have an anti-nuclear shelter ready in New Zealand? No? So you're an idiot.

**** you ringo

You are a very stupid person who does not know how to discuss an issue in a civil manor

 

[Ringo]

**** you ringo
You are a very stupid person who does not know how to discuss an issue in a civil manor

I don't have discussions with idiots and nazis. I just showed you your place. Don't thank me.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't have discussions with idiots and nazis. I just showed you your place. Don't thank me.

You’re a fool

 

[Ringo]

You’re a fool

You see! A fool can always keep silent and pass for smart, but rarely uses this opportunity.

 

[Mac-7]

You see! A fool can always keep silent and pass for smart, but rarely uses this opportunity.

You are a troll Ringo

Instead of arguing an issue all you can do is hurl insults

Be gone with you

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
BTW, why do you use such weird way of quoting? Your response can be find only by chance.

I don't see anything confusing...

Are you referring to the "Originally posted by ..." part?

That's how things worked when I joined the Board in 2004.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
For me, a United Europe is the best way of social and political cooperation between the European states. And Eastern Europe joining the EU is a natural process, that was inevitable. Also, a United Europe needs a common security policy. With NATO or without.

These are all legitimate goals, Esay...

The issue is: how to achieve them without alienating, bullying, threatening Russia.

In 1992, 93 it was already obvious that the continent needed a post Cold War pan-european security arrangement. The continued existence and expansion of NATO was the european security arrangement of the Cold War applied to a post Cold War world, in other words, NATO became an aberration of thought.

In an ideal world, the new European security structure would necessarily include Russia but you have a series of obstacles that range from ideological to practical reasons.

Many people in Europe do not consider Russia as an european country. They see it as an asiatic country at worst or an euro-asiatic civilization at best. They claim Russia didn't participate in the major european ideological changes: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc...

Others point to more practical, concrete reasons. They say that the plan conceived by the US and western Europe for post Cold War Europe to increase their geopolitical power, included the economic and military absorption of eastern Europe, keeping Russia exactly as she is today: a mere provider of raw materials outside of any economic and military alliances.

If a new, ideal pan european security arrangement that includes Russia can't be reached then a new one must be conceived that doesn't threaten Russia. A security structure Russia can live with.

Anything would be better than this dinosaur of the Cold War whose time has passed.

 

[Ringo]

Ukraine is such a sovereign country that Victoria Nuland is on a recording picking what would be their new Government, the US helped coup their old Gov't in 2014 and Biden is on video bragging about how he forced their President to fire their Prosecutor sounds like independence to me

 

[alang1216]

It's pretty clear Ukraine and NATO are on the best way to lose the war.
But who will feed small remains of Ukraine after the war?
It needs at least $1 trillion annually because its industry is already gone many years ago
Why we must pay the NAZI parasite who still refuses to accept the equal rights for all its citizens

Comrade, the aggressor here is the autocratic Putin and his oligarchs. If the Ukrainians are willing and able to weaken the Bear, they are doing our work for us. Russia has meddled in our politics and I have no sympathy for their regime. Ukraine will rebuild quickly after the war ends but Russia will be a beggar for a generation.

 

[ESay]

These are all legitimate goals, Esay...

The issue is: how to achieve them without alienating, bullying, threatening Russia.

In 1992, 93 it was already obvious that the continent needed a post Cold War pan-european security arrangement. The continued existence and expansion of NATO was the european security arrangement of the Cold War applied to a post Cold War world, in other words, NATO became an aberration of thought.

In an ideal world, the new European security structure would necessarily include Russia but you have a series of obstacles that range from ideological to practical reasons.

Many people in Europe do not consider Russia as an european country. They see it as an asiatic country at worst or an euro-asiatic civilization at best. They claim Russia didn't participate in the major european ideological changes: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, etc...

Others point to more practical, concrete reasons. They say that the plan conceived by the US and western Europe for post Cold War Europe to increase their geopolitical power, included the economic and military absorption of eastern Europe, keeping Russia exactly as she is today: a mere provider of raw materials outside of any economic and military alliances.

If a new, ideal pan european security arrangement that includes Russia can't be reached then a new one must be conceived that doesn't threaten Russia. A security structure Russia can live with.

Anything would be better than this dinosaur of the Cold War whose time has passed.

What exactly do you disagree with in keeping NATO in place - its 'history' background or the US involvement or what?

I don't think that Russia will ever be included in a Pan-european security agreement as a member state. It would be a mistake. Something similar we can see with Turkey now from time to time, when Ankara pursues its own policy despite certain objections from NATO partners. A country that wants to be a regional leader on its own will hardly ever be a reliable partner.

There is no difference how this security bloc will be called - NATO or EUTO or something else. It is clear that it will have to have a strategy to confront Russia if it ever decides to attack the Baltics or Poland or Finland (I don't say that Moscow has these plans now, but any military alliance should have a plan how to defend its flancs). The same goes with Turkey, given their tense relations with Greece and Cyprus.

 

[ESay]

I don't see anything confusing...

Are you referring to the "Originally posted by ..." part?

That's how things worked when I joined the Board in 2004.

Yes. When one wants to reply to someone else's post they push a 'reply button' beneath this post and write an answer. Then push 'Post reply' and the reply emerges in the thread.

In this case the author of an original post gets a notification above the bell and they can see who replied and when. In your case there is no notification.

 

[Ringo]

Western countries have long ago issued a blanc cheque for any crimes of Kiev regime. So their reply to this is predictable:

 

[Baron]

ivan, welcome to Ukraine , if you want a slice of Europe, come and take it ....

Sharon,

I care a ...... about run by traitors and enemies of peoples Russia and Ukraine

 

[Litwin]

Sharon,

I care a ...... about run by traitors and enemies of peoples Russia and Ukraine

they (Mongols) came to steal some land from us Europeans , and pay full price , so inform your imperialist buddies , that they ´ll pay full price as well
The British Defense Ministry said Saturday that the horde “highly likely” suffered more than 300 casualties in a New Year’s Day strike on its troops in Ukraine at Makiivka near Donetsk City.

UK: Russia Likely Undercounts New Year’s Day Strike Casualties

10 civilians killed in Russian strikes in Eastern Ukraine

www.voanews.com

 

[Care4all]

Ukraine will be a bottomless pit if congress allows it.....Good to see someone is looking ahead to the rebuilding costs of what territory Russia allows them to keep.

it's actually SAVING us a ton of money, if Ukraine wins...

 

[Baron]

they (Mongols) came to steal some land from us Europeans ,

Can you proof now Russians are Mongols?
If not you're a stupid lying f...!

 

[Litwin]

Russians are Mongols?

look. YOUR "HISTORY" MADE UP my THE GERMANS (elites ) in 19c , NON of them spoke your Mongol - old Bulgarian language ( French speaking Pushkin standardised it only in 19c.) in 1812 only 1 person in your czar government could speak dog - language( Mongol - old Bulgarian language). and old- Belarusian language everybody has called rus - language ( russian , ruthenian) just google - " Skaryna " not your Muscovite (Mongol - old Bulgarian language) one

you can start here :

its free in PDF:

https://jsis.washington.edu/ellisoncenter/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/05/Bedeski_Robert_Mongol-Foundations-of-the-Russian-State-1.pdf

Tsarev ulus: Russia in the Golden Horde on JSTOR

Charles J. Halperin, Tsarev ulus: Russia in the Golden Horde, Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique, Vol. 23, No. 2, Autour du XVIIIe siècle (Apr. - Jun., 1982), pp. 257-263

www.jstor.org

 

[Bleipriester]

It's pretty clear Ukraine and NATO are on the best way to lose the war.
But who will feed small remains of Ukraine after the war?
It needs at least $1 trillion annually because its industry is already gone many years ago
Why we must pay the NAZI parasite who still refuses to accept the equal rights for all its citizens

Germany, of course.

Scholz announces "Marschall Plan" for Ukraine

I am really no expert for Marschall Plans but maybe he should wait until the war is over... https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germanys-scholz-g7-discuss-marshall-plan-ukraine-85556301

www.usmessageboard.com

As long as they can make their dogs shit on the sidewalks every two meters, they have to pay up, Baron. Pay up big time.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
its 'history' background or the US involvement or what?

Both...

The american involvement and NATO's Cold War past are complicating factors... Both are in fact inextricably intertwined.

NATO is not an genuinely european security arrangement. It's a US dominated structure that established firstly western Europe and now the whole continent as an american military protectorate similar to the one that exists in Japan. If it's difficult to include Russia in a real european security arrangement imagine an organization where european nations are subordinate to the interests of the US.

I don't think that Russia will ever be included in a Pan-european security agreement as a member state. It would be a mistake. Something similar we can see with Turkey now from time to time, when Ankara pursues its own policy despite certain objections from NATO partners. A country that wants to be a regional leader on its own will hardly ever be a reliable partner.

There is no difference how this security bloc will be called - NATO or EUTO or something else. It is clear that it will have to have a strategy to confront Russia if it ever decides to attack the Baltics or Poland or Finland (I don't say that Moscow has these plans now, but any military alliance should have a plan how to defend its flancs). The same goes with Turkey, given their tense relations with Greece and Cyprus.

As you just said, not all NATO members are equals... Germany's economic weight is absolutely disproportional, Turkey has geopolical ambitions in the Middle East and Central Asia and a territorial dispute with Greece... but they are still there under the same security umbrella.

They say one of the best ways to solidify a military, security alliance is to create economic integration among the members making their economies dependent on one another exactly the opposite way we're seeing in Russia now.

But none of these huge obstacles we mentioned invalidates my basic point:

NATO is not only an outdated, jurassic security arrangement created for a geopolitical reality that doesn't exist anymore, it has now become a risk to the world.

 

[ESay]

Both...

The american involvement and NATO's Cold War past are complicating factors... Both are in fact inextricably intertwined.

NATO is not an genuinely european security arrangement. It's a US dominated structure that established firstly western Europe and now the whole continent as an american military protectorate similar to the one that exists in Japan. If it's difficult to include Russia in a real european security arrangement imagine an organization where european nations are subordinate to the interests of the US.



As you just said, not all NATO members are equals... Germany's economic weight is absolutely disproportional, Turkey has geopolical ambitions in the Middle East and Central Asia and a territorial dispute with Greece... but they are still there under the same security umbrella.

They say one of the best ways to solidify a military, security alliance is to create economic integration among the members making their economies dependent on one another exactly the opposite way we're seeing in Russia now.

But none of these huge obstacles we mentioned invalidates my basic point:

NATO is not only an outdated, jurassic security arrangement created for a geopolitical reality that doesn't exist anymore, it has now become a risk to the world.

Basically yes, NATO is not a 'European' alliance but an American-led one. More than a decade has passed since talks about a European army began circulating. Virtually nothing has been done since then. One of the reasons, there is a strong American lobby not to get this done.

Who will win and who will lose, in the case of the United Europe forming its own military alliance, is quite debatable.

A 'solidified' military union depends not only on economic cooperation. A sociopolitical aspect also plays its significant role. In this case, I think that not only Russia, but also Turkey can't be part of this.