https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...icly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826“Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”
Russia blockading Ukraine's Black Sea ports affects the whole world, and is enough reason for the west/NATO to get stuck in there. For instance, Sweden is not even a member of NATO but if Russia tried to invade Gotland then NATO would intervene in minutes because of the strategic importance of that island.
How did Hungary manage to get into the EU?
Were they so different when they joined or were the prerequisites not as hard?
Why do you always put his name in quotation marks?Ukraine, like Russia, is a corrupt oligarchy, and it doesn't come remotely close to reaching the EU's stated criteria for joining. 'Zelenskiy' is hoping he can emotionally blackmail the EU into footing the bill for rebuilding his country into an EU-worthy country ("We fought and died for your freedom Europe, now you all need to go poorer, hungier and colder to repay us!"). Macron and Scholz are saying they fully support Ukraine's candidacy because they know there is not a chance in hell Ukraine will ever be joining the EU. As you said, Macron and Scholz have come under immense and mostly unwarranted criticism for not giving their full support to Ukraine. Going there today and pretending to want them in the EU (France, Germany and Italy don't want Ukraine anywhere near the EU, it's the one thing they have in common with the UK, though like I said it's for very different reasons) is a very easy way for them to shift future blame onto the likes of Sweden, Portugal, the Netherlands and Denmark.
So essentially you want a direct war between nuclear powers? Because that is what would happen.
The only consistent things about Joe Biden are that he is cautious, and that he likes to shift blame to others. The alternative was worse, but he's still so underwhelming.A bit odd that the Biden administration can't seem to communicate as one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...icly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826
Yes, because the alternative is worse.
This is more advanced than I expected. Will be interesting to see wether Denmark and Netherlands agree to this.
It is similar to Le Pen, and many other political factions in Europe that want to break the EU and become little autocrats. In Hungary it succeeded to gain enough traction to get power. The same danger exists in most other member states. All countries in Europe have their political Putin and dictatorship lovers that use nationalism to support them. Even GB was seduced by the anti EU rhetoric leading to Brexit. The Kremlin propaganda over the last couple of decades has done major damage by convincing a lot of people that everything to do with the west/US/non Christian/ non your nationality/ etc is bad; the strategy is the same, the message of implementation differs to appeal to the characteristics of the people.How did Hungary manage to get into the EU?
Were they so different when they joined or were the prerequisites not as hard?
The only consistent things about Joe Biden are that he is cautious, and that he likes to shift blame to others. The alternative was worse, but he's still so underwhelming.
Biden is quite terrible. Imagine how bad the other candidate was if he lost to freakin Joe Biden!
I used to be a fan of Biden but it really is turning out to just be "better than Trump" and nothing else. Donating a further billion to the war when shit is hitting the fan here is none sense. Just controlled by military economy.
Until the political system in the US is changed, all presidencies will be exactly the same.
I do think long term though it’s hard to ignore Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine is the right, albeit hard domestically, thing to do. $1b is a huge amount of money, no doubt, but it’s a drop of water in ocean of the US economy, issue is surely more on policies and things that should be improved before money is thrown in?Biden is quite terrible. Imagine how bad the other candidate was if he lost to freakin Joe Biden!
I used to be a fan of Biden but it really is turning out to just be "better than Trump" and nothing else. Donating a further billion to the war when shit is hitting the fan here is none sense. Just controlled by military economy.
Part of me wants to see a western coalition too, but first of all the west has fatigue of spending vast fortunes on war and their soldiers dying in foreign countries, but I just think the possible looming threat of nuclear war is more than anyone wants to stomach.
Truth is the government's are there to act in the self interest of their citizens not risk everything for Ukraine.
Yes, because the alternative is worse.
Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.For me, the failure to act makes nuclear war more likely, not less. This war isn't just about Ukraine, and Putin has said that clearly. If he wins, he moves onto the next target, and before long that target is going to become the NATO member Baltic states. He'll rationalize it to himself as the west are weak, they didn't stop me before, and they won't risk their own safety by trying to stop me now for the sake of a small country no-one really cares about. And he'll be wrong.
It really is exactly the same mentality that led Hitler into WW2. It's important that people realize that.
I do think long term though it’s hard to ignore Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine is the right, albeit hard domestically, thing to do. $1b is a huge amount of money, no doubt, but it’s a drop of water in ocean of the US economy, issue is surely more on policies and things that should be improved before money is thrown in?
Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.
We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?
No, I do not prefer a nuclear war. However, we can't continue to let Russia use the threat of nukes to prevent us from intervening. Because Russia will just keep going, and it will keep getting worse and worse. The longer we wait, the higher the price will be.
Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.
For me, the failure to act makes nuclear war more likely, not less. This war isn't just about Ukraine, and Putin has said that clearly. If he wins, he moves onto the next target, and before long that target is going to become the NATO member Baltic states. He'll rationalize it to himself as the west are weak, they didn't stop me before, and they won't risk their own safety by trying to stop me now for the sake of a small country no-one really cares about. And he'll be wrong.
It really is exactly the same mentality that led Hitler into WW2. It's important that people realize that.
No, I do not prefer a nuclear war. However, we can't continue to let Russia use the threat of nukes to prevent us from intervening. Because Russia will just keep going, and it will keep getting worse and worse. The longer we wait, the higher the price will be.
Letting Russia take Ukraine piece by piece is surely allowing them to get away with it. Those regions are not even that pro Russian, it's only what Russia wants you to believe. Russia have not suffered nearly enough, officially ceding Donbas with already taken Crimea would be a win for Putin no doubts. Not as big win as he intended but a win nevertheless. Give 10 more years and they will be back for a round 3, to take even more territory because why not.It will not keep getting worse. Russia could not invade Kiev for instance and unity of NATO powers and aid to ukraine blocked them in what otherwise would be a take over of Ukraine. Putin was pushed back. Now, he needs face saving (as does Zelensky). Cede Donbas and/or Crimea to Russia with a bridge on it or something and end the war. Russia suffered. Them getting a hold of pro russian regions does not give them the indication they can do what they want.
So I really don't get the logic that peace at this stage will show Putin he can do what he want. He absolutely did not do what he wanted.
Letting Russia take Ukraine piece by piece is surely allowing them to get away with it. Those regions are not even that pro Russian, it's only what Russia wants you to believe. Russia have not suffered nearly enough, officially ceding Donbas with already taken Crimea would be a win for Putin no doubts. Not as big win as he intended but a win nevertheless. Give 10 more years and they will be back for a round 3, to take even more territory because why not.
Knowing us, we will scrap all plans to do that the very same minute a peace treaty is signed. We had 8 years from 2014 to do the same but we managed to become even more dependent on Russian resources than ever before. There is simply no way Russia would stop there after taking Donbas. It's not only Putin who wants to invade all the neighbour countries, it's pretty much the entire fecked up nation and they will never stop until they either achieve that, or be crushed so hard that they abandon those ideas, similar to how Germany fell. There will never be peace until one of those happens.Two things can be true. Pro Russia with some propaganda. Completely anecdotal but I dated a girl from that part of Ukraine who only wanted to be referred to as Russian.
Therefore I don't think they can take Ukraine piece by piece. They couldn't get to Kiev and that means something. As for 10 more year, this is the time to ween off of Russian resources and slowly build independence. There were many steps that could have been taken to avoid this and the second time we should listen to the warning signs.
That times takes and is why is happening though. The aid to Ukraine isn’t so Ukraine can go and win the war (that will take years) it’s so they can hold Russia at bay. Time is Russia’s enemy right now, Europe has gone into overdrive to wean itself off Russian energy and sanctions are snowballing.It's not considered a drop in the ocean when thousands of other things are discussed in terms of improving social lives of people, let alone talking infrastructure investment. In the context of the budget, yes it is but then I see locally public transport projects struggle to finish for not having the budget for it in millions
Russian aggression should be controlled by developing alternate sources of energy. Europe put all their eggs in Putins basket which was a dumb thing to do but there is still time. Make a two year plan to get off of it.
I get it’s an idealistic viewpoint because so many counties have disputed territories but it wouldn’t happen as you say if the major countries were United. Some counties would try to use force, like Russia is doing now, but if everyone else (and that’s the issue there will always be some division) responded against them no one else would try a similar thing.This means war between China and Japan. India v Pakistan. We'll have to support Israel against the Palestinians, probably. Tibet loses its claim, maybe Taiwan as well. We'll have to get involved in West Sahara. Probably hundreds of other disputes I'm not familiar with.
You're calling for direct military attacks against Russia. That is an act of war, it will start a nuclear war. If you don't prefer nuclear war to the current situation, why are you calling for actions that are mutually understood to mean nuclear war?
No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?
I am calling for an military intervention that will include attacks on the Russian invaders. This does not by any means guarantee a nuclear war.
Knowing us, we will scrap all plans to do that the very same minute a peace treaty is signed. We had 8 years from 2014 to do the same but we managed to become even more dependent on Russian resources than ever before. There is simply no way Russia would stop there after taking Donbas. It's not only Putin who wants to invade all the neighbour countries, it's pretty much the entire fecked up nation and they will never stop until they either achieve that, or be crushed so hard that they abandon those ideas, similar to how Germany fell. There will never be peace until one of those happens.
When was this if you don’t mind me asking? The situation had changed quite a lot since 2014 and there couldn’t have been a bigger reason to abandon pro-Russian views as an Eastern Ukrainian than the 24th of February and everything that happened next.Two things can be true. Pro Russia with some propaganda. Completely anecdotal but I dated a girl from that part of Ukraine who only wanted to be referred to as Russian.
Therefore I don't think they can take Ukraine piece by piece. They couldn't get to Kiev and that means something. As for 10 more year, this is the time to ween off of Russian resources and slowly build independence. There were many steps that could have been taken to avoid this and the second time we should listen to the warning signs.
I get it’s an idealistic viewpoint because so many counties have disputed territories but it wouldn’t happen as you say if the major countries were United. Some counties would try to use force, like Russia is doing now, but if everyone else (and that’s the issue there will always be some division) responded against them no one else would try a similar thing.
For example, let’s say in a ridiculous hypothetical scenario China had suddenly become really pro free speech and decided it was their future to become more Western. Xi could literally stop the war with a single phone call, potentially so could Modi.
Again, never going to happen but here’s to hoping.
This means war between China and Japan. India v Pakistan. We'll have to support Israel against the Palestinians, probably. Tibet loses its claim, maybe Taiwan as well. We'll have to get involved in West Sahara. Probably hundreds of other disputes I'm not familiar with.
When was this if you don’t mind me asking? The situation had changed quite a lot since 2014 and there couldn’t have been a bigger reason to abandon pro-Russian views as an Eastern Ukrainian than the 24th of February and everything that happened next.
That’s not to say that there are no people that support Russia there — ridiculously enough I’ve met Mariupol survivors that believe that they were saved from Ukrainian Nazis by Russian troops (I really can’t understand how that’s possible but there’s that), but it’s an absolute minority.
I don’t know how any Ukrainian will be okay with giving Mariupol, Kherson, Melitopol & Severodonetsk away after they’ve seen what happens/happened there.
No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?
I am calling for an military intervention that will include attacks on the Russian invaders. This does not by any means guarantee a nuclear war.
You forgot North vs. South Korea but ya a lot of different conflicts could erupt. Ironically, the one conflict that may stay stable would be India v Pakistan as both sides have a history of good relations with both the West and Russia/China. This would only change if China decided to invade India, which is possible in a World War event.
The whole East was pro-Russian at least to some extent before 2014. What happened after that had significantly upped the stakes — most of those who ended up on the Ukrainian side got, well, disillusioned with their neighbor (while those who found themselves in Peoples Republics of Donetsk & Lugansk often got radically anti-Ukrainian).This was 2015/16. In America though. So it's possible she wasnt the voice of the locals. You would know more, but I am wary of western propaganda when it comes to wars on that the "locals" want. From my own research it seems there is or at least was some pro russian sentiment in the region and mix it win the propaganda.
