NotThatSoph
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,794
We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?Yes, because the alternative is worse.
We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?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.
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 millionsI 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?
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.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.
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.We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?
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.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.
See above. The line was drawn. Beyond this point, we can decide to punish Russia with attacking them directly but more war is not worth it. Putin is on his back and I really think he just needs a face saving. If you corner a mad dog he will bite you in the process of killing himself.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.
No it's not. There was no thing like nukes and nato when Hitler started invading countries. The moment Putin invades a nato country, he will have to deal with all of Nato. Ukraine isn't that and he is failing there.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.
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, 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.
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.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.
No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?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?
Attacks on Russian troops is war on Russia unless you're being obtuse.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.
Crushing Russia hard wont happen unless they do try and invade more countries or more of Ukraine.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.
To say this for the millionth time, Modi doesn't have that clout with Moscow and India is dependent on Russian military supplies and maintenance to defend against China due to the situation in the Cold War. That's why you haven't heard any pressure from the West towards India throughout this crisis and, if anything, Western cooperation with India has increased during the war. The long term goal would be for India to produce more weapons domestically and diversify their stockpiles with Western countries to strengthen their resiliency in these sorts of crises.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Attacking Russian targets is an attack on Russia. What do you think the US would have done if the Russians bombed them in Iraq or Afghanistan?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.
True, but if we're talking about grand scale military intervention in every territorial dispute then we'd have to choose the side if either India or Pakistan. It's stableish now, but won't be if we go all in in favour of whoever.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.
Although the east was ethnically and culturally Russian, there was little to no secessionist sentiment there. As in, they wanted to proceed as Ukrainian nationals and continue developing the country. It wasn't until Putin started fomenting chaos in Crimea, then Donbas in 2014 that sentiment began to waiver a bit.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).
I’d expect that the return to the borders of pre-February the 24th is the only deal that Ukraine can possibly take. The country and people have never been united like they are now and they’re not going to leave their people (those who have lived & identified as Ukrainians pre-invasion) under the Russian rule. It’s going to be a defeat to them.
I've been hearing that as well, but recently I am hearing from some outlets that Ukraine's own population would rather go for an end to this at some cost. How true would you say that sentiment is?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).
I’d expect that the return to the borders of pre-February the 24th is the only deal that Ukraine can possibly take. The country and people have never been united like they are now and they’re not going to leave their people (those who have lived & identified as Ukrainians pre-invasion) under the Russian rule. It’s going to be a defeat to them.
I think in the Netherlands, there is a lot of sympathy for the current plight of Ukraine (and to support their war effort) - but that's not the same as supporting Ukrainian EU membership. There is a strong sentiment there that eastern European EU countries are being costly to western Europe and don't always fit EU values (in reference to developments in Poland and Hungary, or levels of corruption in Romania and Bulgaria), and people won't want to add to that by having Ukraine brought in premarturely (before they meet membership criteria). There's also a bit of xenophonia, where eastern Europeans are often seen as different from western Europeans (a lingering Cold War sentiment?). Those are not new sentiments, and the Dutch government parties really won't lose votes over vetoing things in this regard.Sorry I meant EU. Anyways, what is the general sentiment in those countries towards their govt. being against Ukraine joining EU? I thought Germany and France were the ones who were being weak on Ukraine but it seems like Netherlands, Denmark etc. are getting a free pass from the press. I know due process matters but Ukraine will have to be built from ground up after this so, not sure why they are being so pedantic about everything.
How did Hungary manage to get into the EU?
Were they so different when they joined or were the prerequisites not as hard?
I think that, previously, there was more of a sentiment that the EU is a pan-European movement to bring all of Europe together, and build up everyone to western European levels of wealth. I think some eastern European countries were let in with that sentiment - and I think that has diminished after it turned out progress wasn't as quick as hoped (see my examples above), leading to a more strict and lower entry process. Hence countries like Montenegro taking a while now to get in at all. (From Wikipedia: "Montenegro officially applied to join the EU on 15 December 2008, and membership negotiations beginning on 29 June 2012. With all the negotiating chapters opened, the country enjoys a widespread support among EU members' officials, and accession of the country to the EU is considered possible by 2025.")I think over the years a fair few countries have sneaked in that technically didn't meet the criteria but yes their current president has eroded and corrupted their democracy to a great degree using similar tactics to the likes of Putin and Boris.
What we see right now with Biden will be the best we will have unfortunately, Republicans can make it far, far worse.Until the political system in the US is changed, all presidencies will be exactly the same.
Good point and yeah, I agree. Despite them being pro-Russian I don't think that the idea of leaving Ukraine/becoming independent/joining Russia was prominent there, it was about having closer cultural/economical/political ties with Russia while remaining a part of Ukraine.Although the east was ethnically and culturally Russian, there was little to no secessionist sentiment there. As in, they wanted to proceed as Ukrainian nations and continue developing the country. It wasn't until Putin started fomenting chaos in Crimea, then Donbas in 2014 that sentiment began to waiver a bit.
It was a hypothetical scenario and I did caveat it with ‘potentially’.To say this for the millionth time, Modi doesn't have that clout with Moscow and India is dependent on Russian military supplies and maintenance to defend against China due to the situation in the Cold War. That's why you haven't heard any pressure from the West towards India throughout this crisis and, if anything, Western cooperation with India has increased during the war. The long term goal would be for India to produce more weapons domestically and diversify their stockpiles with Western countries to strengthen their resiliency in these sorts of crises.
I can't speak for them, obviously, but from what I generally hear from Ukrainians, Ukrainian journalists & other people currently in Ukraine they're still very much in the fight to the death stage. Mostly for a simple reason that if they don't have their bright and highly symbolic victory (taking everything back to pre-24.02 is the very least they can do), they feel like Russia will step back, lick their wounds and come again — all while continuing to support the slowly-burning conflict on the border, just like they did since 2014. They simply can't trust Russia to keep any kind of a deal while it's still the same Russia — with the same people in power & with the same military strength.I've been hearing that as well, but recently I am hearing from some outlets that Ukraine's own population would rather go for an end to this at some cost. How true would you say that sentiment is?
In North America there's a long held stereotype that Ukrainians are stupid. You might have noticed it when you were in Winnipeg as it's prominent among non-Ukrainians in the Canadian prairies and the midwestern US states. I wonder if that influenced her declaration of ethnicity?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.
Not that its evidence but the discussion in this thread does suggest prior to 2014 there have been pro-russian locals. Not sure why you find it so ridiculousIts frustrating how the phrase "pro-Russian" is almost universally used as if it means "happy to be invaded by and annexed by Russia".
Its a ridiculous notion. I'm yet to see evidence any significant amount of people held such views prior to 2014, in the east, in Crimea, or anywhere.
Better try gambling than letting tens or hundreds of millions of people die from starvation. You show strength now, you force your enemy to stand down instead of letting him become greedier. And besides, all of those lessons from military exercises from Western powers on maintaining freedom of navigation near Chinese waters better be put to use here. Warships should be protecting that sea corridor for Ukrainian grain to get out.So essentially you want a direct war between nuclear powers? Because that is what would happen.
See above. The line was drawn. Beyond this point, we can decide to punish Russia with attacking them directly but more war is not worth it. Putin is on his back and I really think he just needs a face saving. If you corner a mad dog he will bite you in the process of killing himself.
Unfortunately Russia and Putin doesn't see it like this, you are looking at it from a purely Western, can't we all just get along perspective. Why should Ukraine and the brave ukrainian citizens give anything up to Russia, because in 5-10 years they'll come again. Its the long game for Russia. Chechenya, Georgia & Ukraine are part of a much bigger plan. They've threatened Sweden, Moldova, Finland, it won't stop. Once people get their heads around this it'll be easier to understand why, as a parent, is rather us all deal with Russia now then let our children deal with them.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?
In Crimea — going by my personal first hand experience — the notion of rejoining Russia, one way or another, was always present. There's a lot of the grass is greener on the other side sentiment to it though — especially with Sevastopol hosting the Russian Black Sea fleet and a considerable Russian army contingent there being well-paid by the standards of the city. So they didn't really see any of the downsides that you see when you're actually in it but they saw all the bonuses + the idea of the historical wrong being done right etc. It would've been really interesting to have a proper survey that would ask Crimean people what they think of joining Russia now, 8 years later.Its frustrating how the phrase "pro-Russian" is almost universally used as if it means "happy to be invaded by and annexed by Russia".
Its a ridiculous notion. I'm yet to see evidence any significant amount of people held such views prior to 2014, in the east, in Crimea, or anywhere.
I'd say ukranians are living the alternative. We aren't.We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?
I'm pro-Ireland, I want want Manchester to become part of Ireland. ...Wait, actually that's a bad example.Not that its evidence but the discussion in this thread does suggest prior to 2014 there have been pro-russian locals. Not sure why you find it so ridiculous
If they come out of this war having taken over 20-25% of Ukraine's territory then it would seem like they can co whatever they want. If they can just decide to launch an invasion on a neighbour and take part of their land. What stops Russia regrouping and rearming and doing the same 4-5 years down the line?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.