@no1marauder saidWhat you seem to keep ignoring is Putin’s demand that nato retreat to its soviet era lines. I’m sure your not stupid enough to grasp the implications of that demand for a peaceful coexistence between Russia and the NATO reliance so I can only assume your ok with it.
Putin has not done anything that should trigger a conventional war between the superpowers.
What you seem to keep ignoring is that Ukraine is not part of NATO and was purposely excluded from that alliance so that the West would not have to respond to any attack on it by going to war. The West deciding to do so, as you keep agitating for, would be a serious and unexpec ...[text shortened]... is intent on sweeping across all of Europe, but there is literally nothing to support such paranoia.
We know that Russia is more than happy to concoct all kinds of reasons fir invading its smaller weaker neighbours but you think we should strip them of the collective defence afforded by the alliance, I wonder if you realise how scumbag that attitude looks coming from someone safe and cozy across the other side of the Atlantic.
NATO has to pour more and more weaponry into Ukraine so they can stop Putin before he gets to NATO’s border, more severe sanctions are required to push Putin to a realistic negotiating position.
That’s realistically the only non catastrophic ending to this scenario because no matter how much you anti NATO types wring your hands NATO isn’t going anywhere and it’s not giving up on Ukraine.
@metal-brain saidI agree a limited nuclear war is survivable but the point of M.A.D is no one wins and a nuclear winter is a distinct possibility if everyone goes all out and in that scenario you would have to seriously redefine the concept of survival.
"the reality of M.A.D is still the overriding deterrent"
That is a myth.
If it was true nobody would feel the need to put nukes closer to Russia. The vast majority of people can live through a nuclear war if they prepare and know what to do. Don't get me wrong, the radiation fallout would be horrible, but if you can live in a basement for a few days most of it will blow away in the wind.
Of course long term it might be good for the planet to have a break from human activity and maybe we’ll build back better
@kevcvs57 saidThat paranoid response will insure the war continues indefinitely with all the death and misery that will surely bring. This is unfortunate since even you recognize that Ukraine's current negotiating position, which refuses to countenance the surrender of any territory that it had de jure control of before the 2014 coup, is unrealistic.
What you seem to keep ignoring is Putin’s demand that nato retreat to its soviet era lines. I’m sure your not stupid enough to grasp the implications of that demand for a peaceful coexistence between Russia and the NATO reliance so I can only assume your ok with it.
We know that Russia is more than happy to concoct all kinds of reasons fir invading its smaller weaker neighb ...[text shortened]... ch you anti NATO types wring your hands NATO isn’t going anywhere and it’s not giving up on Ukraine.
Putin did not demand that NATO rescind the membership of the countries in Eastern Europe. He did propose, inter alia:
"The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties."
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en Article 4
Whatever you may think of that, even if accepted it would not change the guarantee of mutual security against attack which is (supposedly) the heart of NATO. So, again, you are being hysterical.
How much of Ukraine is going to be left for NATO not to "give up" on if your policy proposals continue to be the primary response to the war by Western States is problematical.
@metal-brain saidIs there a stronger way to say "wow you're an imbecile" than just that phrase? Something to also communicate my amazement at just how much of an imbecile one can be
"the reality of M.A.D is still the overriding deterrent"
That is a myth.
If it was true nobody would feel the need to put nukes closer to Russia. The vast majority of people can live through a nuclear war if they prepare and know what to do. Don't get me wrong, the radiation fallout would be horrible, but if you can live in a basement for a few days most of it will blow away in the wind.
@zahlanzi saidYou're there on the front lines of NATO, Z. What do you think about all this?
Is there a stronger way to say "wow you're an imbecile" than just that phrase? Something to also communicate my amazement at just how much of an imbecile one can be
@zahlanzi saidFrom the link below:
Is there a stronger way to say "wow you're an imbecile" than just that phrase? Something to also communicate my amazement at just how much of an imbecile one can be
"Most people think that if nukes go off then everybody is going to die, or it’ll be so bad they’ll wish they had. That’s why you hear such absurd comments as; “If it happens, I hope I’m at ground zero and go quickly.”
This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any competing alternatives to their ban-the-bomb agenda, like Civil Defense. The activists wanted all to think there was no surviving any nukes, disarmament was your only hope. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. Since the supposed end of the Cold War in the 80’s, most Americans saw neither a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good."
https://humansbefree.com/2022/03/surviving-a-nuclear-disaster-90-of-the-casualties-are-avoidable-when-you-know-what-to-do.html
@zahlanzi saidStarting an unjustified war is not regarded as a war crime. It is regarded as a crime against peace. There are no established international mechanisms to punish crimes against peace.
so to sum up this massive pile of manure, you're asking us why do we believe the entire world (minus russia, belarus and china) instead of Russia who invaded the country in the first place, has outlawed most media, is arresting any dissenters and is constantly bombing civilian targets.
You know, you raise an interesting point. Why do we believe the war crime commiting invader is committing war crimes? I now have doubts
A war crime is a manner of conducting a war. For example, knowingly killing unarmed civilians is a war crime. There are international conventions to punish war crimes. International Criminal Court is able to manage accusations of war crimes.
If A starts a war against B, it does not follow that A commits war crimes and B does not. For example, NATO started a war against Serbia, but allegedly it was Serbia who committed war crimes or crimes against humanity (and this was the reason why NATO intervened).
In the case of the current Russia/Ukraine war, let me remind you that Russia has accused Ukraine of war crimes and genocide, committed in Donbas on the Russian-speaking population since 2014. During 8 years, approximately 14 000 people have been killed there. While the West prefers to ignore or deny such accusations, Russia itself regards it as one of its justifications for invading Ukraine in 2022.
It also shows that it is not always so clear whether starting a war was justified or not. Different sides have different opinions about it. And sometimes, the opinions change when new information is obtained. For example, the West considered the Iraq war as justified. Finally, they realized that this war was based on intentionally faked intelligence data about Iraq's chemical weapons.
@kevcvs57
I do not know whether it is a Georgian war crime if a Georgian mercenary commits a war crime in the Ukraine/Russia war. If Georgia has not officially sent these soldiers to Ukraine, but Ukraine has officially accepted that regiment of foreign mercenaries, it still seems that it is rather Ukraine who is responsible.
The New York Times wrongly wrote that these were Ukrainian soldiers committing a war crime in Ukraine.
Concerning your other remarks, this issue belongs to psychiatry or the criminal court. No one should ever respond to such comments.
@zahlanzi saidRussian channels are also inconclusive. However, hearing the arguments of the other side makes it possible to find mistakes in the accusations of the first side.
"satellite images are not conclusive. Let's look at what Russian channels show"
For example, Russian channels justifiedly ask why the NASA satellites made pictures only about the dead bodies on the streets and no picture was taken at the earlier moments? Why the date of the pictures should be clear, if there were no automatic dates on the pictures, and different newspapers announced different dates of the massacre? Why do the bodies look fresh despite being on the street allegedly for weeks? Why no pictures or videos were uploaded by local people if the bodies were visible for weeks?
All such questions are reasonable and should be answered to make a CONCLUSIVE argument.
@metal-brain saidRight. The US wants the III WW, but starting in Europe and not extending to the UK or US.
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If adopted, this would have enabled the US to v ...[text shortened]... e corporate news media wants WW3. Isn't it obvious? The USA opposes an international criminal court.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidLike I say it’s not for us to decide what terms an invaded sovereign nation should be willing to accept. I think in the end Ukraine would cede these areas or some smudge that kicked a final designation down the road.
That paranoid response will insure the war continues indefinitely with all the death and misery that will surely bring. This is unfortunate since even you recognize that Ukraine's current negotiating position, which refuses to countenance the surrender of any territory that it had de jure control of before the 2014 coup, is unrealistic.
Putin did not demand that ...[text shortened]... policy proposals continue to be the primary response to the war by Western States is problematical.
Putins demands regarding nato might seem like reasonable if there was any possibility of NATO unilaterally attacking a major nuclear power with a top notch air defence system. Given NATOs refusal to even supply Ukraine with second hand fighter jets anyone claiming that scenario as a valid reason for Russia’s demands shouldn’t be chucking words like ‘hysteria’ and ‘paranoia’ around. What your suggesting is that Russia would have a veto on what weapons its smaller neighbouring states are allowed to posses because anything that NATO could install in those territories could also be bought and installed by the territory itself.
I think what your not getting is that the world has moved on from the soviet era and central and Eastern European states are no longer prepared to be in anyones orbit of influence and their history with Russia is such that they are the last states they are going to rely on Russia to not roll over their border before a distant nato can come to their defence.
Russia has no right whatsoever to be dictating what arsenal their former colonies can station in their sovereign soil.
@eintaluj saidThat’s because your a liar and a coward who has no way of wriggling out of the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign state and is now committing war crimes in that territory on a daily basis.
@kevcvs57
I do not know whether it is a Georgian war crime if a Georgian mercenary commits a war crime in the Ukraine/Russia war. If Georgia has not officially sent these soldiers to Ukraine, but Ukraine has officially accepted that regiment of foreign mercenaries, it still seems that it is rather Ukraine who is responsible.
The New York Times wrongly wrote that these ...[text shortened]... this issue belongs to psychiatry or the criminal court. No one should ever respond to such comments.
You never address any point relevant to the actual facts of this land grab by your beloved Russia.
@eintaluj saidStop lying and stop being stupid
Right. The US wants the III WW, but starting in Europe and not extending to the UK or US.
Putin started this war by invading a sovereign state after lying its face off for weeks concerning its obvious intention not the US.
His motivation is to prevent a democratic and potentially prosperous Slavic state arising right next door to his authoritarian banana republic. Along with gaining control of the Black Sea and Ukrainian wheat.
Putin is a pirate in control of a nuclear power.
@kevcvs57 saidkev: His motivation is to prevent a democratic and potentially prosperous Slavic state arising right next door to his authoritarian banana republic.
Stop lying and stop being stupid
Putin started this war by invading a sovereign state after lying its face off for weeks concerning its obvious intention not the US.
His motivation is to prevent a democratic and potentially prosperous Slavic state arising right next door to his authoritarian banana republic. Along with gaining control of the Black Sea and Ukrainian wheat.
Putin is a pirate in control of a nuclear power.
It's hard to fathom why you keep clinging to this absurd notion. As already shown, the Ukraine isn't terribly "democratic" and it was an economic basket case even before the invasion.
Russia's reasons for attacking it cannot possibly be based on such fairy tales no matter what the neocons are telling you.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidTreaties are made which limit what weapons nation states can possess and deploy all the time; are you unaware of this? States that joined NATO in Eastern Europe had gotten by without large deployments of NATO troops and weapons long after their admission as I already pointed out.
Like I say it’s not for us to decide what terms an invaded sovereign nation should be willing to accept. I think in the end Ukraine would cede these areas or some smudge that kicked a final designation down the road.
Putins demands regarding nato might seem like reasonable if there was any possibility of NATO unilaterally attacking a major nuclear power with a top notch ai ...[text shortened]... t whatsoever to be dictating what arsenal their former colonies can station in their sovereign soil.
When an invaded sovereign nation wants other countries to supply them with weapons to continue a hopeless war, it is surely within the province of those countries to condition such aid on reasonable and realistic bargaining positions at peace talks.