Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Rektsanwalt said:
wow this is one of the most cringeworthy answers of him ever and that says a lot
Click to expand...

Trump has to be by far the dimmest President that Americans have ever had. He has the attention span of a goldfish, the emotional age of a 5 year-old, and I doubt he even understands the meaning of many of the words in any document given to him
 
Frosty said:
The Guardian:

Delegates from both sides of peace talks say there has been progress

Delegates from both sides of peace talks have sounded positive, ahead of more negotiations in the next few days.
Ukrainian negotiator and presidential advisor Mykhailo Podolyak said talks had become more constructive.
“We will not concede in principle on any positions. Russia now understands this. Russia is already beginning to talk constructively. I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days,” he said in a video posted online.
Leonid Slutsky, a Russian delegate said there had been significant progress and they hoped to soon arrive at a “joint position”, Reuters reports.
The state-owned RIA news agency said he was comparing the state of talks now with those when they first started, saying there had been “substantial progress”.
This comes a day after the French and German presidents, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz said Vladimir Putin did not show a willingness to end the war during a call on Saturday.
Click to expand...

The worst thing is if a deal gets made with some regions going to Russia then many will have died for nothing. Both sides would probably have taken that for some time but Putin has to bomb innocents to strengthen his hand and get as much as possible.
 
Smores said:
The worst thing is if a deal gets made with some regions going to Russia then many will have died for nothing. Both sides would probably have taken that for some time but Putin has to bomb innocents to strengthen his hand and get as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I don't think Putin would accept anything less in a negociation at this moment.
 
So Russia have killed an American Journalist.

Surely Biden can enter the war now.
 
hellhunter said:
I admire the bravery and symbolism, but it makes for uneasy viewing seeing him walk about in the open like that
Click to expand...
The place would probably have been secured. And I don’t believe he is really a target for a raid.

Killing him would do the Russian invasion much more harm than good. Even in Russia he doesn’t seem to be the target of the propaganda. They are more about making him look irrelevant, as in “the west and the Nazis” are the real people ruling Ukraine and not the the elected government.
 
Garethw said:
I have zero time for Biden, but I’m getting sick and tired of this constant “we must do more” line that gets thrown at him.

What exactly Do people want him and NATO to do? WW3 will likely end with nuclear strikes across the globe. WW3 will affect hundreds of millions of people.

A NATO intervention at this stage is likely to end the world as we know it. Why can’t people grasp this fact?
Click to expand...

hmmmm.

they drink strong coolaid.
 
hellhunter said:
A solid point for all the whatabouters and bothsiders

Click to expand...

Yup. There’s a reason countries want to continue on a path to Westernisation and look to the EU and NATO for their prosperity and security. If Russia had anything to offer, countries would look to join their racket, sorry I mean trade and security groups.
 
hellhunter said:
A solid point for all the whatabouters and bothsiders

Click to expand...


It's only a solid point if you ignore geopolitics and the fact that historically the largest nations have areas of influences where other large nations don't really step.
 
Russia’s defence ministry has admitted responsibility for the rocket attack on the International Centre for Peacekeeping & Security, a military base, near Lviv on Sunday.
It said that the facility in Yavoriv was being used to store military equipment delivered from foreign nations, according to Reuters. A spokesperson said it killed up to 180 “foreign mercenaries” and a “large amount” of weapons.
The defence ministry said it will continue attacks against foreign mercenaries.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Trump has to be by far the dimmest President that Americans have ever had. He has the attention span of a goldfish, the emotional age of a 5 year-old, and I doubt he even understands the meaning of many of the words in any document given to him
Click to expand...

Truman wasn't that bright but had lots more self awareness and humility.
 
hellhunter said:
A solid point for all the whatabouters and bothsiders

Click to expand...


It's a good point. I was never using Twitter much before this war but it has become essential for me during it. Educational as well! I learned that there is a word called "westplaining" being used. Think it's fantastic. Like "mansplaining" when a man tries to explain shit to other genders in a very patronizing way. Westplaining is when I read this thread and see points like those you quoted and then get a westerner coming in speaking about geopolitics, belittling any right and aspiration to join the EU and NATO. You can, of course, also speak in hindsight about how it was a mistake to let those who already join, join. Like what is sovereignty even? As if we should feel guilty, or at least, get real and whatnot.
 
Raoul said:
This shows how utterly absurd it is to argue on behalf of Putin's view on this topic, instead of the view that states can be free to chart their own paths.
Click to expand...


I think the 'Putin' view is important only in that it's how he can sell the idea. Its quite important context for the narrative he peddles, not to us, but at home, like all warring nations. Sure most wars would be untenable without the narrative for the homefront.

Also if we always went with self determination as a rule and not just when it suits a narrative I think we'd be all more able to trust the narratives
 
Garethw said:
I have zero time for Biden, but I’m getting sick and tired of this constant “we must do more” line that gets thrown at him.

What exactly Do people want him and NATO to do? WW3 will likely end with nuclear strikes across the globe. WW3 will affect hundreds of millions of people.

A NATO intervention at this stage is likely to end the world as we know it. Why can’t people grasp this fact?
Click to expand...
Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.

If Russia does use a tactical nuclear weapon, I would think they’d lose the support of China, which would be devastating.
 
Beans said:
Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.

If Russia does use a tactical nuclear weapon, I would think they’d lose the support of China, which would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Why would Ukraine be nuked? The risk of a nuclear strike is mentioned in the context of a war with a country that is going to hurt Russia itself, not in the context of Russia struggling in Ukraine.
 
hellhunter said:
A solid point for all the whatabouters and bothsiders

Click to expand...


I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.

And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.

Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.

Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.

And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.

Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.

Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder - Russia is bombing Ukraine here. Ukraine is Yemen or V
JPRouve said:
It's only a solid point if you ignore geopolitics and the fact that historically the largest nations have areas of influences where other large nations don't really step.
Click to expand...

And at some point certain historically larger nations have to accept things have changed, particularly if their economic strength is no longer sufficient to back up their geopolitical ambitions. Russia is behaving, and demanding a level of respect, like its the Soviet Union at its height. In reality, this is more like Britain and France at Suez (without the military competence).
 
MoskvaRed said:
And at some point certain historically larger nations have to accept things have changed, particularly if their economic strength is no longer sufficient to back up their geopolitical ambitions. Russia is behaving, and demanding a level of respect, like its the Soviet Union at its height. In reality, this is more like Britain and France at Suez (without the military competence).
Click to expand...

Of coruse and that's why Russia are seen negatively.
 
Beans said:
You’ll end the world for that but not for Ukraine?
Click to expand...

There's an argument to be made that we are already at war with Russia and the continued use of Article 5 as a hypothetical red line, only incentivizes Putin to double down on carnage inside Ukraine, as long as he doesn't attack NATO territory. This is in my view a shortcoming of Article 5 in that it can be used by an enemy force to prevent NATO from doing anything while WMDs are used against civilians. That wasn't its intent and so NATO powers need to take a look at ways to do more.
 
Beans said:
Ukraine is fighting back and they’re not getting nuked. No one wants to see war, but it’s a better alternative than Putin controlling every country that isn’t part of NATO on the back of a threat.

If Russia does use a tactical nuclear weapon, I would think they’d lose the support of China, which would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Well of course Ukraine isn’t being nuked. Russia isn’t threatened by Ukraine is it?

Russia would be threatened by NATO though. There’s a difference
 
Raoul said:
There's an argument to be made that we are already at war with Russia and the continued use of Article 5 as a hypothetical red line, only incentivizes Putin to double down on carnage inside Ukraine, as long as he doesn't attack NATO territory. This is in my view a shortcoming of Article 5 in that it can be used by an enemy force to prevent NATO from doing anything while WMDs are used against civilians. That wasn't its intent and so NATO powers need to take a look at ways to do more.
Click to expand...

Are they not just citing article 5 because they don't want to engage? I don't think article 5 would be in the conversation if they wanted to attack.
 
Carolina Red said:
How many times does this conversation need to be had in this thread?

Article 5 of NATO is not hard to understand.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he's saying it's unreasonable to fight for Ukraine because it might end the world, but he very quickly is willing to end the world for NATO. I don't think that's reasonable.
 
TheReligion said:
Well of course Ukraine isn’t being nuked. Russia isn’t threatened by Ukraine is it?

Russia would be threatened by NATO though. There’s a difference
Click to expand...
I thought the whole reason Russia is invading is because Ukraine is a threat.

Let's have Australia join the fight then, they're no threat and have no nukes.
 
Beans said:
Yes, but he's saying it's unreasonable to fight for Ukraine because it might end the world, but he very quickly is willing to end the world for NATO. I don't think that's reasonable.
Click to expand...

I see your logic, but there has to be line, even one that seems arbitrary.
 
moses said:
Are they not just citing article 5 because they don't want to engage? I don't think article 5 would be in the conversation if they wanted to attack.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. I honestly don't think the current group of NATO leaders (Biden, Bojo, Macron, Scholz, Trudeau) are have the fortitude or political courage to come to grips with the idea of going to war, and are using article 5 as a way to limit their involvement in Ukraine, while making it appear like they are leaning forward on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.