Why then do you question ssu about why he's chosen their side? — Olivier5
it's not about what 'Ukrainians' want - as if they were some amorphous mass (insulting in itself). It's about what some portion of the Ukrainians want - a portion you've chosen to support.
You've chosen a side and I'm talking to you about your reasons for choosing that side. I'm not asking about that side's reasons for being that side. — Isaac
Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections? — ssu
In reality, Kolomoisky is tied to alleged contract killings and armed militias and jaw-dropping bribery. And all of those tools made Kolomoisky, by the mid-2010s, one of the most powerful figures in Ukraine … 'I think Kolomoisky is super-dangerous,' one American diplomat said. 'He was one of the first oligarchs who began to act like a warlord.' … As both Ukrainian investigators and American authorities have detailed, Kolomoisky allegedly oversaw a multi-year, multi-national money laundering scheme meant to loot billions from unsuspecting Ukrainian depositors … The U.S. directly sanctioned Kolomoisky in early 2021, announcing his 'involvement in significant corruption.'
he is obviously profiting from the conflict …. — Apollodorus
ssu and I support what the government of the Ukrainians wants, not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5
I respect the will of the Ukrainians themselves. — Olivier5
not what all Ukrainians as a mass want. — Olivier5
I'm not in the business of second-guessing commanders-in-chief. What ground do you have to say Zelensky is illegitimate? — Olivier5
So you disagree with Zelensky's policies. I don't. I think he does the right thing and he does it well. So what? Do we need to be at each other's throat for it? — Olivier5
What I'm much more interested in is your reasons, which you seem frustratingly reluctant to provide. — Isaac
then when I point out that would have applied to Trump you change the subject... — Isaac
Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal? — Isaac
At least the sliding has been noticed.Slippery slopes?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe — jorndoe
Thus, if the Western liberal democracies—out of an understandable abundance of prudence—declare a priori that they will not engage in a forceful way with military means in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, then there will not be adequate restraint for most authoritarian and autocratic leaders with ambitions of empire. And that applies to more than Russia’s President Putin.
As @Olivier5 said, it's up to the Ukrainian government to decide what to accept as terms for armistice or for peace. How Ukrainians perform in the defense of their country will guide what options the government will have. If they accept a deal with Putin, that hopefully should be made from a position of strength: that continuing the war after rebuilding the army, isn't a valid option for Putin. They know far better their situation. Ukrainians have every just reason to defend their country from an hostile invasion. And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread.I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. — Isaac
Ending a 200 year old policy that has been so successful that Sweden avoided two World Wars is naturally a big decision for any prime minister. But the fact is that the decision has already been taken. Every shred of neutrality has already basically gone. NATO trains in Sweden and Sweden has participated in NATO operations like in Afghanistan and Libya. Sweden isn't neutral and even Swedes should understand that. Just like we should do ourselves. It's not like during the Cold War when some secret guarantee was done between Sweden and the US.It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really. — Christoffer
You have to ask from the person directly.People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank
If you think that's bad, you'll be shocked to learn the US government "stockpiles" dangerous pathogens all over the United States, including the last surviving smallpox viruses outside Russia. Not only that, but it partners with the Canadian government to do so in Canada. The UK, Germany, and France all do this to, as does Russia. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Well, the claim is that emerging new biological threats, such as tuberculosis that is extremely resistant to antibiotics, need to be collected and safely stores. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist. — ssu
And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread. — ssu
An amendment? (peacekeepers = :up:)
Russia ends its military presence in Ukraine, including Ukrainian airspace
Ukraine cease military action against Russians in Ukraine
the Ukrainian constitution grants the Russian parliament veto right regarding Ukraine becoming a NATO member
Ukraine does not invade Russia or let other nations invade Russia via Ukraine
Ukraine agrees to UN peacekeepers
if Russia insists on an investigation into bio-facilities in Ukraine, then the same is to take place in Russia (perhaps under WHO/UN supervision)
Russia recognizes Ukraine as a sovereign state
Russia rebuilds (or pays for rebuilding) what they ruined in Ukraine, Russia returns (or pays for) what they took from Ukrainians
The victims of the invasion/bombings are still the Ukrainians on the ground, not Putin or his Kremlin generals, or other Muscovites. — jorndoe
On August 23, 1939, representatives from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union met and signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also called the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact), a mutual promise made by the two leaders guaranteeing that neither would attack the other.
Trump was Putin's puppet. He wasn't legitimately elected. You can't compare him with Zelensky. — Olivier5
Because Putin cannot be trusted, for one. — Olivier5
Because the Ukrainian forces aren't broken yet, for two. — Olivier5
Still not out of 'odd' territory though. You're saying as long as the election was good, you don't question the decisions of elected leaders. That's a highly unusual position. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.