If you were against a new foe that had being supplying arms to your adversaries would you make a concentrated effort to wipe them out?Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
Printable View
If you were against a new foe that had being supplying arms to your adversaries would you make a concentrated effort to wipe them out?Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
Frog.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
I asked a simple question, and by my reading you've just waffled on about your interpretation of some things but you've still not answered it. That's all I'm asking, not for you to say you want Ukraine to give up.
Try again, and then we can progress the discussion:
Do you believe that informal assurances made by unelected representatives 35 years ago with a state that no longer exists are more significant than the sovereign rights of individual states with contemporary elected governments?
The old french flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
White cross on a white background.
Dick head!Quote:
Originally Posted by crashbang
NATO should have kept their promise. Is that what you want me to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by John2
You have picked a small piece of a far reaching diplomatic situation. You are not open to accept an argument and call a valid response ?waffle?. The problem is with you and not me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
I don't have a detailed grasp of Russian-Ukranian history, as I suspect neither do you, but my understanding is that bottom line Ukrain has a long border with Ukraine and it has historical significance as a key gateway for Western troops to enter Russia. Russia is very guarded against the west seducing and using Ukraine as this gateway for invasion, although there hasn't really been any evidence of intention there. Recent escalations in 2009 and 2014 has escalated a mutual hostility between the 2 countries, but the important thing for me is that a free and fair election ran and Ukraine subsequently wanted to join the fellow former USSR countries in gaining NATO membership. Clealy this irked Russia - appearing to maintain that it thought that Ukrainse was planning to overthrow Russia, although there was very little evidence of any such plans other than the minority paramilitary nutjobs that exist in most states with historical greviences and want to keep historical fights raging.
Significantly, I suspect that Russia knows that if Ukraine joins NATO, then any such territorial escalation will have to be met with opposition from all NATO members, thereby ruling out a manouvre that Russia clearly wants. The worrying thing for me is what lays beyond this, and whether there are further plans, from Putin or people beyond him, to revive their former glorious empire.
Would I want to fight for Ukraine? If I was a Ukranian citizen and was in the country in these circumstances, I suspect I would. Do I want UK forces on the ground out there? No of course not, but the armed forces exist for a specific reason, and responding to escalations such as an invasion of a sovereign country is just as relevent and worthy now as it was in 1939. The Russian state have been the activators in the conflict, and only their invasion is the reason for their war - to blame the Ukraine for wanting to gain NATO membership, granted to it's former USSR neighbours, doesn't wash for me.
It's not a small piece at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogmiller
You and Russian propogandists are literally using a 35-year-old informal discussion by one deaceased reresentative of the US to a deceased representative of a state that no longer exists, to imply that modern day Russia is justified in invading the sovereign state of Ukraine.
I'd love for you to sit for just one moment, reflect on that, and question how you found yourself in this position. I don't think you will though. You say I'm not accepting an argument, but all I have done is asked a question based on something you said, and you appear to have confirmed my interpretation.
Raging and John.
I haven?t read what you?ve written but it seems from what you?ve previously written is that you are happy to argue that you are willing to have people die and for you and everyone else to pay for it in the name of sovereignty.
I noticed the outrage following Vance's comments that he made in Munich a few days ago .
The European hierarchy clearly didn't like it and I sense it was a truth hurts moment .
If Europe wants to continue destroying itself from within then why should the US be an ally ?
Me neither .
Honestly, I think society is crumbling before our eyes. The internet has flooded everyone with misinformation.Quote:
Originally Posted by animallittle3
We see the same cycle time and again through human history. Inequality, blame immigration, misinformation, populism.
You're all right that things are messed up, but you're all wrong to think the easy answer is to listen to the populists.
Europe has been incredibly reliable partners to the US. Vance's comments misrepresented situations through misinformation talking points - it is not illegal to pray in the UK. It is illegal to harass people who might be going for an abortion within the immediate vicinity of an abortion clinic.
In a civil, reasonable democracy, we've decided people shouldn't be subject through harassment through an already incredily difficult time.
What is the better ally for the US?
Russia? Putin literally murdered his strongest political opponent. That's the free speech the populists dream of. That's the direction the US is heading. Freedom to agree only with the party in power, or be assassinated.
History is full of this pattern again and again, and you're falling for it. again.