• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

DEFCON Warning System said:
The difference is...if I am reading what you are asking correctly...is that Russia gets rewarded for invading Ukraine and has no incentive to not do it again. In fact, we have seen that. There were no consequences to taking Crimea, so they went for more.

Reality is that if you don't stop them now, it will get worse later.
Click to expand...
Yup, unfortunately Putin is like any other conquistador. Ive been saying this since the war started. He never planned to stop at Crimea, and he wont stop at Ukraine if not stopped. Let a kid steal from the cookie jar, they do it again.
 
bartok said:
Excuse me, Mr. Obreid,
But if you kindly allow, I am European, so, I am worried about the situation a little more than you on an "Europe that could burn": it's for that reason that I am a little more pragmatic.

As I said to REALHumanRights about we have to "discern betweens what we wish for, from what is actually possible", I have to say to you that we have to discern between the reality, from taking the pisses: tell me the difference among

"agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return"

and the

"absolute nothing".

Even if Russia had never invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would have agreed to leave the the territories and Crimea in Russia control and not seek their immediate return, that was exactly what Ukraine was doing before the invasion, for the simple reason that it coudn't oppose to what it didn't have enough power yet, but meanwhile preparing (with NATO) to the moment when it would cliamed what is yours.

You can say that Ukraine is right to claim what is yours: but it's NOT THAT the point. Russia doesn't think like that and, consequently, it doesn't agree. And the agree or the disagree of Russia is not something that can be ignored: it's a principle of reality, not a moral principle on what is right or what is wrong. Such an statement, would be credible only with strong garanties, even and mostly from NATO, not with a generic "not for now": this is an obvious pissing off. We can may think Russia is wrong, but not that it boughts it. So the point IS that there are actually no conditions to make peace and then, the better way to avoid the spread of the war, is that Russia wins, possibly ASAP. Or do you prefer an imprevedible excalation? maybe yes: but not me. My idea is that, betweens you and me, the most pacifist is me. To me, you seems like people with the mounth plenty of "peace", who says: "I am for the peace! It's incredible a war in 2022, because of the evil Putin! The best way to have a peace, would be to kill Putin". A lot of people says that. Tanks fuck: as if killing Putin it wouldn't mean - war -! If it were so simple, they would have killed Hitler in 1939. Or Hitler would have killed Stalin in 1942. So, if we really want a peace, we have to talk seriously on the basis, NOT on what is right and what is wrong (it's oblvious that a war exists just because there is not agreement on that), but on what is possibile and what is not.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said Ukraine conceded to the key points of Putin not to join nato and leaving the break away. So he was given what he so desperately claimed to desire and need.
But it never really mattered.
What will be your excuse or reasoning when Russia tries to roll into Latvia or Belarus try’s to make. Land bridge to Kaliningrad?
You are either arguing for a complete pacifist response to open war in hopes that is save your skin. Or you are arguing for Russia’s claims.
One of these is a failed practice repeated throughout history and the other is as an adversary.
You yourself their is nothing stopping Russia from taking Ukraine.
If that is the case negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are mute.
Only know this Russia is the nation that started this war and they are the ones who have rejected negotiations.

It’s just the way of the world. Humans can be the most compassionate and reasonable caring creatures. And they can be the most vindictive violent ones as well.
According to you we are all about to find out.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The difference is...if I am reading what you are asking correctly...is that Russia gets rewarded for invading Ukraine and has no incentive to not do it again. In fact, we have seen that. There were no consequences to taking Crimea, so they went for more.

Reality is that if you don't stop them now, it will get worse later.
Click to expand...
This is not the question, yes we must offer a way out to Russia for this war to stop.
Otherwise, you will have to live in a post-apocalyptic world, i.e. a nuclear winter. Unless you think your country is invincible
and that he can raze Russia in the blink of an eye.
Do you have another solution?
 
Saguenay said:
This is not the question, yes we must offer a way out to Russia for this war to stop.
Otherwise, you will have to live in a post-apocalyptic world, i.e. a nuclear winter. Unless you think your country is invincible
and that he can raze Russia in the blink of an eye.
Do you have another solution?
Click to expand...
Yes Russia can recognize their mistake and withdraw.
And would you please quit implying that those of us here think that the west is invincible. You have only heard that from a few here. The rest do know the stakes and we also recognize the risk of doing nothing
 
The West is definitely vulnerable just like everyone else. Only difference I say is we have the only means on the planet to move hell on earth and back. Put it in simple childrens term we own the top of the hill. 😎

Doesn't make us invincible. But sure as hell helps and sets us appart from everyone else on earth.
 
Obreid said:
Don’t be too casual about the outcome.
Yes we do have more capabilities but we also have a long way to fall.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree. We must fight every minute, of every day, and every year to keep us on the up and up. But once your at the top it's very easy to stay their. Especially paired with our one of a kind broad spectrum military capabilities. We just have to make sure not to fuck it up for ourselves.
 
Obreid said:
And would you please quit implying that those of us here think that the west is invincible. You have only heard that from a few here. The rest do know the stakes and we also recognize the risk of doing nothing
Click to expand...
No, I won't stop, you didn't tell me what to think! period! <removed getting personal>
 
Saguenay said:
No, I won't stop, you didn't tell me what to think! period! <removed getting personal>
Click to expand...
Well then you either are not reading the other post, you are reading into them what you want to believe, or you are being disingenuous.
The risk are at the forefront of all of our comments and post.
Possibly you are misinterpreting our willingness to face that risk because you think we believe the west come out of a nuclear exchange with Russia unscathed.
I do however believe that Russia is bluffing about escalating to nuclear weapons.
That is not a reflection of some western invincibility but my opinion of Russia’s desperation to avert a complete failure of their invasion of Russia.
 
Saguenay said:
This is not the question, yes we must offer a way out to Russia for this war to stop.
Otherwise, you will have to live in a post-apocalyptic world, i.e. a nuclear winter. Unless you think your country is invincible
and that he can raze Russia in the blink of an eye.
Do you have another solution?
Click to expand...
Yeah. I do have a solution. Russia gives up and pulls out of Ukraine.

I also know that will probably never happen.

So what is the solution? Maybe there just isn't one that will work with the human psyche. Maybe we're on a road we can't get off of.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The difference is...if I am reading what you are asking correctly...is that Russia gets rewarded for invading Ukraine and has no incentive to not do it again. In fact, we have seen that. There were no consequences to taking Crimea, so they went for more.

Reality is that if you don't stop them now, it will get worse later.
Click to expand...

no, I'm traying to say something very different. The better, of course, would have been to reach a compromise. For example: Russia wants Ukraine in its sphere of influence, so it wants UE and NATO. A compromise would have been to both renounce on that and agree on a neutral status.
By now, a compromise could be, as an act of good will, to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, in exchange for something, for example a cease-fire.
I don't know: I have made examples.
But, if the postions are - as they actually are - to NOT accept any compromise at all, what possibilities remain? The war: nothing else. That's is the fact. So, if the war is the only response, the better is, in order to avoid its spread, is that Russia wins ASAP.

The risk you are speaking about, that if Russia wins, it can do it again, personally don't think so, but it can't be excluded. So, this problem, will be solved when-end-if it will manifest itself, for example, learning from the past and don't making the same mistakes, as to avoid absolutly any compromise at all from the beginning, or as sending to Moscow people like Liz Truss, that she didn't even know what she was talking about. And, if Russia wins, it's likely that in an hiphotetical future crisis, Russian reasons will be heard with a little more attention and a little more bent to find shared compromises.
 
Last edited:
Obreid said:
In the initial negotiations early in the war Ukraine did agree and in principle still are willing to not enter nato and be neutral.
Click to expand...

Russia was very clear it that phase: that it would not accept any vague promises. Let us not fool ourselves: it was obvious that nothing would have changed and that bilateral developments with NATO would have gone ahead until the integration with NATO would have been a pure formality.
Russia asked - I say almost with literl words - solid certitudes as reinforced concrete, as to say, the disappearance of any formal reference, in NATO documents, about the integration of Ukraine into the NATO and a supervised withdraw of any US infrastructure, the whole ratified in an ufficial treaty with a legal validity.

Obreid said:
They have agreed to open negotiations and requested a open referendum from those regions.
As the war has progressed this is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

It's obviously an inadmissible request for Russia. Russia has already made a referendum in Crimea. To allow an other referendum would have been a sign of wikeness. And then... let's say the things for what they are: we all know that in Crimea 90% almost is for Russia. What's the sense for another referendum? That we don't like that Russia has taken Crimea, it's a matter of "right-and-wrong" position. But Crimea is now part of Russia: it's a matter of reality. So, given the situation, as I said before, a good sign of will should have been to recognize Crimea to Russia.

If you are refering to a referendum on Donbass Republics instead, the request to make such a referendum was subordinate to a complete Russian withdraw and it come after a public official recognition from Putin. It wouldn't have had any sense, for Russia, to completely withdraw the troops, to allow a referendum into Republics already recognized: it would have meant to take back the word, as to say another sign of wikeness. It was obvious that Russia would have never accepted! Come on! We can't hope that Russia does things completely dumb, at our suggestion.
But if we wanted to give even a minimal chance for such a referendum, AFTER the public recognition, we had to accompany the proposal with the recognition of Crimea in advance.
If we want to have a deal, we should discuss seriously. In the currently situation, I suppose that the ONLY chance to have a peace, is to recognize Crimea and the 2 Republics, and then discuss on the situation in the other areas. It's clear that the more we go on, the less Ukraine has arguments with which to treat, as for Donbass, that now it's to late to propone a referendum.

But, as I said before, I don't see any will to treat. So, we return on the war and on what it would be better in order that it doesn't spread.
 
bartok said:
Russia was very clear it that phase: that it would not accept any vague promises. Let us not fool ourselves: it was obvious that nothing would have changed and that bilateral developments with NATO would have gone ahead until the integration with NATO would have been a pure formality.
Russia asked - I say almost with literl words - solid certitudes as reinforced concrete, as to say, the disappearance of any formal reference, in NATO documents, about the integration of Ukraine into the NATO and a supervised withdraw of any US infrastructure, the whole ratified in an ufficial treaty with a legal validity.



It's obviously an inadmissible request for Russia. Russia has already made a referendum in Crimea. To allow an other referendum would have been a sign of wikeness. And then... let's say the things for what they are: we all know that in Crimea 90% almost is for Russia. What's the sense for another referendum? That we don't like that Russia has taken Crimea, it's a matter of "right-and-wrong" position. But Crimea is now part of Russia: it's a matter of reality. So, given the situation, as I said before, a good sign of will should have been to recognize Crimea to Russia.

If you are refering to a referendum on Donbass Republics instead, the request to make such a referendum was subordinate to a complete Russian withdraw and it come after a public official recognition from Putin. It wouldn't have had any sense, for Russia, to completely withdraw the troops, to allow a referendum into Republics already recognized: it would have meant to take back the word, as to say another sign of wikeness. It was obvious that Russia would have never accepted! Come on! We can't hope that Russia does things completely dumb, at our suggestion.
But if we wanted to give even a minimal chance for such a referendum, AFTER the public recognition, we had to accompany the proposal with the recognition of Crimea in advance.
If we want to have a deal, we should discuss seriously. In the currently situation, I suppose that the ONLY chance to have a peace, is to recognize Crimea and the 2 Republics, and then discuss on the situation in the other areas. It's clear that the more we go on, the less Ukraine has arguments with which to treat, as for Donbass, that now it's to late to propone a referendum.

But, as I said before, I don't see any will to treat. So, we return on the war and on what it would be better in order that it doesn't spread
Click to expand...
Well as I said before, then the war will continue. According to you it is only a creeping list of Concessions from Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t want negotiated peace he wants the entirety of Ukraine back in the Russian fold.
Too bad
 
Obreid said:
Yes Russia can recognize their mistake and withdraw.
And would you please quit implying that those of us here think that the west is invincible. You have only heard that from a few here. The rest do know the stakes and we also recognize the risk of doing nothing
Click to expand...
I don't see the Russian's giving up what they have of their own volition. Not at this juncture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom