- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
New thread. Old one was 38 pages long!
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
UA-RU-NATO | Discussions 2024
- Thread starter Friendly Engineer
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
This is the source of the modified Ukrainian NATO interim plan.
I attached it to my post regarding removal of a NATO member because it seems somewhat relevant to that as well.
The proposal seems to basically laying a lot of the institutional standards NATO nations use to begin being implementation for Ukraine.
No mention of voting requirement to move forward with it.
Looks to be one part fast track to membership after the war is ended, one part standardization of equipment and possibly training, one part message to Russia.
Being that this has largely become a war of attrition now this is important.
For moral in Ukraine as well as a potentially significant message for Russia.
I had a lengthy debate last night and this morn regarding the actions cause and/or solutions to the Ukraine Russia war.
I stand by my principles mentioned there.
Nato nations and even members here should not be bellicose regarding Russias actions or future. It serves no purpose to hopefully a meaningful conversation. Just as supporters of Russian view should at least try and answer other members concerns they disagree with. As well as not be bellicose or trite.
In the discussion thread of course.
Otherwise it all just devolves into a trollfest and seeing who can get the best gotcha or bitch slap in to the thread.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/KBLXIZ3BJZCEZKDWO26CGV473Q.jpg)
NATO to unveil Ukraine security package as ‘bridge’ to membership
NATO plans to unveil a new Ukraine security package at a July summit in Washington, while working on better regional coordination within the alliance.
www.defensenews.com
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
I can guarantee the French know this and are obviously willing to take the risk.
Any French Military in Ukraine Would Be a 'Legitimate Target' for Russian Forces, Lavrov Says
Ukraine’s top commander said last week he had signed paperwork allowing French military instructors to access Ukrainian training centers soon.www.military.com
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
I can guarantee that there's no consensus in France over this, not even in the government.
No French is willing to accept the idea of having some of their connationals returned back in body bags from Ukraine.
Macron is as usual bluffing or willing to really badly lose the elections...eyes on tomorrow because he may announce the agreement to send the trainers in Ukraine...no details (of course, guess why) are gonna be provided if that's the case.
In France, on Saturday and Sunday there's elections, where Macron is supposed to lose again the pro-putin Le Pen's party by a 16 points margin.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
It will definitely be interesting to see what is said.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
Sure.
Another point to add more information over this story.
In normal circumstances, if a country is preparing to do some relevant (not necessarily war) military action which implies the risk of human loss, you would see a ton of media prepping.
There's been literally nothing until now.
Not that cannot start at any moment, but I really don't get what game Macron is playing.
The more he pushes for a more direct approach against russia, the more consensus he loses.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
Yeah I feel his goal was to show strength to Russia but all it did was divide NATO.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Location
- I could be right beside you.
June 3, 2024 - Map Shows Total Territory Gained by Russia If Ukraine War Ends Now (NEWSWEEK)
I watched the video and was thinking that Poop'n will not stop there. A ceasefire will only give Russia time to rest, rearm, and continue on in a few years. Low and behold, when I read the article it read exactly my thoughts exactly, "The Kremlin, Merezhko told Newsweek last month, "needs a respite for several years, to modernize the army and to continue aggression against Ukraine and the West." Poop'n won't be satisfied until he owns all of Ukraine and then I still don't think he will be satisfied. He will take more.
I said before the war started that NATO should put tanks and troops on the border of Ukraine and Russia when Russia was building up a force under the guise of "war games." Poop'n wouldn't have done nothing.
I watched the video and was thinking that Poop'n will not stop there. A ceasefire will only give Russia time to rest, rearm, and continue on in a few years. Low and behold, when I read the article it read exactly my thoughts exactly, "The Kremlin, Merezhko told Newsweek last month, "needs a respite for several years, to modernize the army and to continue aggression against Ukraine and the West." Poop'n won't be satisfied until he owns all of Ukraine and then I still don't think he will be satisfied. He will take more.
I said before the war started that NATO should put tanks and troops on the border of Ukraine and Russia when Russia was building up a force under the guise of "war games." Poop'n wouldn't have done nothing.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
Hungary are on the right track.
Atleast there not shy to admit how Ukraine was set up and don't blame Putin. Great to hear they are trying to create a new avenue for nato members aswell. Especially for this case with Ukraine, as they say ,nato was designed for defence not offence , and Especially not for supporting Ukraine as it isn't a nato country and nato isn't under attack. And acknowledges western interest and design for Ukraine for well over a decade. The Ukrainian attacks well before Putin moved. And the fact no one should interfere as it is a regional conflict between Slavic people. Etc etc. Yeah I'm not alone in my opinions . Not on this site, not in my country, not on a global scale. We all have opinions, yours, mine and others. Please remember none stand alone.
Atleast there not shy to admit how Ukraine was set up and don't blame Putin. Great to hear they are trying to create a new avenue for nato members aswell. Especially for this case with Ukraine, as they say ,nato was designed for defence not offence , and Especially not for supporting Ukraine as it isn't a nato country and nato isn't under attack. And acknowledges western interest and design for Ukraine for well over a decade. The Ukrainian attacks well before Putin moved. And the fact no one should interfere as it is a regional conflict between Slavic people. Etc etc. Yeah I'm not alone in my opinions . Not on this site, not in my country, not on a global scale. We all have opinions, yours, mine and others. Please remember none stand alone.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
I don't undestand this "bluff" what should be intended to obtain. Why Macron should bluff? Not for electoral purposes: you say that in this way he losses consensus. Not to scare Russians, because it doesn't seem the French threat is preventing Russians to do something. Furthermore the Countries saying to be ready to send some kind of troops are increasing: are they all bluffing? On Telegram there are already videos of combact in which there are French troops. And after having seen some of them, to say that they are fake it is an act of faith. Of course, they could be fake, but there is nothing giving a certitute of that: the rifles are real rifles and they really shoot. The uniforms are true uniforms, the bulletproof vests are real and the kicks on the "French" soldier are really kicks (you have to be seriously masochist to give your consent to that, if it is a fake). The Russian speaks Russian, while the The French speaks French, and the radio communication speaks French. And I speak very well French myself, so I am absolutely certain of that. So, could this video in particular be a fake. Yes, it could be, but nothing concrete induces to think like that.
Let's speak about Le Pen. I can't be sure, but I have the suspect that Le Pen is the French Salvini. For example, Salvini plays the role of the politician vaguely pro-russian, but when it comes to vote to send or not weapons to Ukraine, he always votes for "yes". So, I ask: Le Pen, despite her words, until now had she voted to send weapons in Ukraine, or not?
However, I don't see why you are so persuaded that Macron is bluffing. After having said many times, in many occasions, repeatedly - not only him, but even other high state officials - that they are ready to send troops, by now if he doesn't, he will lose the face and he will give to Russia an idea of weakeness that could have been avoided.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
If in France the situation is similar compared to Italy (and I think so, even if the French are quite more aware then us), I suppose that they are not willing to take risks, but, above all: they absolutely don't know to be in a risky situation. If it is like in Italy, the public discussion is oriented to completely other things.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
As I understand it the Italians are not interested in Ukraine-Russia conflict either?
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
I'm under the impression the general population of France don't want to be involved with this stupidity either. (My opinion) majority of population-populations eu and beyond are not interested, do not want to get involved, in all honesty I see this as political interest backed by a minority of warmongers amongst general populations. Money before people.
Not realising that what they believe they can control they can't. And all the money in the world won't mean shit if they are wrong. Are yes gambling problems always affect those that don't have the issue as well as the ones that do.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
It's not easy to answer appropriately. The simple answer is the following: "not, they don't, not so much."
But there are several reasons of that.
1. the suspension of the conscription in the early 2000's, while also in the last years of conscription it was not serious anymore. The fact that nearly the half of the population had once military experience entailed that in someway military questions penetrated the society in many ways, creating a deep geopolitical awareness that extended in a lot of axpects: from the journalism, to the street protests. Currently demostrations are unthinkable, because people absolutely don't know nothing about any kind of military question.
2. the absolute lack of military experience in the society gives the fallacious idea that, just for that, the war is impossible. As if, in orther to avoid a war, it is sufficient to be not interested in it.
3. mass-media. Journalists, as part of the current society, they don't know a shit about geopolitics. Futhermore, almost all the newspaper are in favor of the war.
4. poticians: the same then point 3.
So, what's the result of this situation? The following: people are generacally agree to help Ukraine, but they superficially think there are not actually harmfull consequences for us, because we are not interested in war, as it is a game we don't like. A the most, if someone asks us to "play", the general idea is that it will be enough to say "no, thank's, we don't even know the rules!".
The politicians, partly because they are unaware as the society, partly because they actually are actors pretending to be politicians, while they only have the pourpose to be the paper pushers of Bruxelles (and I mean both UE and NATO) they bring, with the journalism, the public debate towars totally idiot arguments: if a men is a men, if gender is good or not, to the idiocies that Meloni and elly shlein write each other on Twitter pretending towards the pubblic to arguing about something stupid. Mass-media really speak about these things for days and days, only to go towards an other argument equally stupid. People speak about that.
Of course, people know there is a war. It could happen that the argument comes to the politics. Here he comes Salvini, with one of his famous t-shirt long slogans: "Never a war against Russia!". Finished. Good enough: after all, we are not interested in war! But Salvini says so, while being part of the Gouvernement and just after having voted to send weapons against Russia: after all, Ukraine must be helped. Stop: the Italy against the war is almost here. Then, the political debate doesn't move up the actual geopolitical implications about sending weapons against Russia, while being "against the war because we don't like it", but it becomes stupid as usual: the "left" start to say that Salvini is pro-russian, Lega says he is not, the left says Meloni, who is allied with Salvini is fascist, then Salvini and Meloni say that the "left" is communist. All that, while they all vote to send weapons in Ukraine and they actually do the exactly same politics. In little words: they play a theatrical role. And people stay there to see the show, not understanding it is a show.
Of course, someone have undestood the show and the danger of the situations. But they are treated as Cassandra.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
I'm under the impression the general population of France don't want to be involved with this stupidity either. (My opinion) majority of population-populations eu and beyond are not interested, do not want to get involved, in all honesty I see this as political interest backed by a minority of warmongers amongst general populations. Money before people.
Not realising that what they believe they can control they can't. And all the money in the world won't mean shit if they are wrong. Are yes gambling problems always affect those that don't have the issue as well as the ones that do.
I can't speak precisely about France, but I think in the old EU Countries the positions into the society are almost the same. We are not interested in war, we don't want to play at war, we love the peace and we hate any kind of expense for the Defence, we think it's ridiculous that in 2024 there is a war, and the war is a losing step for everyone who start it, so only a tyrant could start a war nowadays and with tyrants discussions are not possible and must be always avoided as they don't exist at all, just because we reject the language of the violence without ifs and buts. Putin is a tyrant, so no discussion with him: we only send weapons to Ukraine in order to give an hard lesson against him, who wants a war in 2024. Then, if the lesson isn't enough, we send other weapons, until it will be enough. There is no risk of a major war: the war is wrong an we don't like war. Who starts a war, is destinated to finally lose just because the war is wrong, so we make peace conferences without one of the belligerant parts, because it has already losed and therefore we speak only about peace.
The "funniest" comes when one put into a discussion this question: "But what YOU will do if a war starts?". Forget it the answers. The responce is always: "not me, I hate the war". Pratically, to hate the war and stupidly refusing it in principle, it's supposed to be a sufficient warranty to avoid it.
The west position, translated from a kind of unconscious though, it's similar to that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2017
- Location
- Russia
Italy has been in good relationship with Russian elites even recently.
Lots of Russian oligarch and generals own their properties there.
Plus, Russia had send military CBRN - biological units and materials to aid with COVID in Italy. They do benefit from cooperation with Russia for their own good, however as I previously stated - such behaviour is not tolerated in the West anymore.
If you are not a bloodthirsty, warmongering freak - you are in danger. I'm expecting Italian politicians getting killed or something.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
You are not Italian, isn't it? I am Italian and I live in Italy. It's not at all how you said. You don't have to take seriously what you said about, for example, Salvini. In Italy (maybe not only in Italy), there is a funny behaviour: to be in the Gouvernement, and pretending to be on the opponement. So you could have read somewhere: "Salvini says <<Never a war against Russia!>>, but Salvini's Lega was part of the Draghi previous Gouvernement and voted to send weapons. Then, even under the current Gouvernement (of which it is part), it always voted to send weapons. This is a fact. The rest are "words" that are said in order to gain the sympathies of those who think that we should find compromises with Russia. But trust me: in Italy, into the Parliament, there is absolutely NOT a single political party against the war. Better said: all the parties are against the war (as I said in the previous post), but they are ALL in favor to send weapons and with their use against Russia. They are ALL in favor: Lega, PD, M5S, FdI, FI. All. And no one is to leave NATO, for example. Of course, each one play a role. Of course, in Italy not all we think like that, but the dissent is not represented at all. There are, sure, some party that pretends to represent the dissent, even if it is part of the Gouvernement. The Democratic Party theorically is on the opponement, but it vote to send weapons.
The most important politicians in Italy don't risk what you said. Finally, what you said about Covid doesn't have so such importance actually.
Then, what should be this "good relationship with Russian elites even recently". Who? Do you refer to Salvini when he came to Moscow with the t-Shirt with the Putin's face some years ago? Do you refer to Meloni, when in 2014 was pretending to give reason to Putin when Russia defended Donbass?
Forget it: on political POV, Italy is perfectly alligned to Germany, France, Holland, etc. Of course, we are far less warmogers than the new EU Countries (=new NATO Countries) like the Baltic States, but what they put in militarism, we largely compensate in unawareness and superficiality: we are all moving towards the war.
Only Ugheria and Slovakia politically have a quite clear idea about where we are going to.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
I appreciate your analysis, and I can follow it and recognize those patters of consensus from a distance in America.
I think it should be acknowledged that these are normal reaction from most westerners. The lack of engagement with the issues and events is kind of a common response civilians have with war always while it is held at arms length.
I also think that these attitudes held by many Europeans as I understand it. Should not be regarded as permanent cultural predisposition. Rather they are conditioned attitudes do to 70 years of no war and an ever enlarging regional consensus of freedom and lack of fear at its root.
That has been a very good thing for Europe and I don’t judge Europeans for this “gift” of apathy.
Apathy is only a pejorative when it is reacting to a ever encroaching danger.
Americans are for the most part the same way. The population at large anyway. Just because the forum is made up in large part of Americans doesn’t mean we are a representative picture or most Americans.
The problem with this benign form of apathy societies fall into. Is that when dangers and threats arise. The populations the government the culture has no accurate frame of reference, understanding or perspective. To intuitively know what the right response should be.
Just like being physically prepared to respond to a SHTF or major disaster.
A healthy person or society needs to have a memory or knowledge of how to respond to a martial threat.
If you have one without the other. Your caught with the flood waters rising up above your ankles and your still unsure or Paralyzed with indecision. “Is it time to react and get the hell off the X?”
We’ve all felt it before. An increasing fear, a sense of unease. That sense that something ahead is lurking that might be a danger to me. It’s an evolutionary trait honed into humans to keep them from getting eaten by a bear or lion.
Today the problem is the world is so noisy most don’t recognize this evolutionary self defense we all have.
So the populations at large will be caught off guard when the SHTF really does happen. And that will be that. What they had they so enjoyed will be over.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
All true, but just because opinions are shared by others does not mean they offer the best course of action.Hungary are on the right track.
Atleast there not shy to admit how Ukraine was set up and don't blame Putin. Great to hear they are trying to create a new avenue for nato members aswell. Especially for this case with Ukraine, as they say ,nato was designed for defence not offence , and Especially not for supporting Ukraine as it isn't a nato country and nato isn't under attack. And acknowledges western interest and design for Ukraine for well over a decade. The Ukrainian attacks well before Putin moved. And the fact no one should interfere as it is a regional conflict between Slavic people. Etc etc. Yeah I'm not alone in my opinions . Not on this site, not in my country, not on a global scale. We all have opinions, yours, mine and others. Please remember none stand alone.
Diverse or conflicting opinions. And the effort to spread them is just as much a part of the struggle for both sides to influence the outcome. The old Russian disinformation adage. The influence of Russian disinformation has been over blown in the west. But it does not mean it’s not a significant influence in the choices western society end up marking and supporting.
Just because your paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you.
Just because western politicians have overplayed the Russia Russia Russia narrative. In no way disproves Russia has ambitions to reclaim some of they’re soviet colonial territories.
One can ignore that or claim it’s not real. But it is still a real thing.
So that brings everyone back to the best way to respond.
Does Europe and the Slavic nations want a EU form of regional organization. Or do they want a Russia view of the old European Russian contest and dividing up of the Slavic states.
Hungary is an interesting example they are very moderate in addressing this issue with the nations that boarder Russia. Yet they are still part of the EU. Where they are allowed to voice and reject decisions made by the EU commission and Parliament.
Would a nation in the Russian umbrella be allowed to vocally and materially reject some decisions from Putin?
I seriously doubt it.
The EU has done a lot of things I think are stupid. Compared however to the previous four centuries of regional warfare amongst European monarchies and governments.
It is reasonable to conclude the current model and effort of the EU and NATO is exponentially better than their recent historical past.
Support for a course of actions does not mean it’s the correct way to proceed.
And in any free society there will be vocal dissent on all matters of importance. It’s a process and we are witnessing it and participating in it as it happens.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
This conflict of ideas and path forward are happening right not in all the societies involved. Many will be caught off guard and shocked at the resulting events.
I like this scene from Braveheart, it captures the reality perfectly.
- Status