Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About La_Dolce_Vita

  • Birthday 08/06/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,999 profile views

La_Dolce_Vita's Achievements


Contributor (5/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. The fact that the US has serious plans to engage militarily in the Ukraine is worrying enough in itself when it has done so little push for negotiation. All it has done of late is to say that it wants to have the Ukraine retake more territory and be given military support to do this so it has a stronger negotiation position. But how achievable is this and what will the US terms be for supporting negotiation? Though the US should be pushing for negotiation sooner rather than later to prevent the use of nuclear weapons given what such use entails by way of devastation and setting a precedent for acceptability, and escalation. That would be the responsibility that the US should have if it was acting for the good of Ukraine and the world but as a self interested power that's doing very well from this conflict it is not likely. With Russia making such a difficult job of holding these regions, I can't see it doing a better job were it to try to invade other nations, especially with NATO support, which is why I find such talk to be a bit silly. I can appreciate how Russia is limiting it's attack to the Ukraine's military but, as you say, it is making a poor go of things.
  2. I'm not saying that the Ukraine is not justified in fighting to defend its homeland. It has been invaded illegally and has every right to resist and should do. What I'm saying is that if this defence comes close to any nation seriously threatening the nuclear weapons, nevermind using them, then that is too high a price. And talk of such things being acceptable in this conflict and in the same breath giving the Ukraine support is so grossly stupid and detached from any consideration of the Ukrainian people and the people of the rest of the world then I can't take seriously any genuine concern for the Ukrainian people. A Russian propaganda point? In what way? What Russia has done by invading the Ukraine is a war crime and it is also a mistake. It wasn't a good idea engaging in this conflict and Russia knows that. Russia would not likely have invaded if it knew that things would pan out in the way that they have. It has damaged its economy and only given the US far greater influence and control over Europe. Russia geopolitical and economic power and influence has only diminished for the sake of the Donbas and Kherson and making it clearer that it means business about any NATO expansion. But if this war continues then that only means more deaths for innocents and brings the West and Russia closer to a more general war. It's a limited war even in the context of the Ukraine and Russia fighting. Russia isn't obliterating the Ukraine's infrastructure and it could do so. But if this conflict risked a wider war or was to last much longer then the risks only increase. The Ukraine isn't at all likely to retake the Donbas, Kherson, and the Crimea so when will negotiation be a serious and prime consideration for dealing with the problem?
  3. It was sensible for the Ukraine to hand those weapons to Russia rather than have new and unstable country holding a lot of nuclear weapons. I'm only saying in case you think there is something unfair about the arrangement. I'm surprised and a little sceptical that any protective assurances genuinely arose because of any agreement on nuclear weapons, as agreements With what you say about disregarding protective agreements, the US disregarded assurances about expanding NATO and recognised that the Ukraine was Russian's backyard. It's all well and good the Ukraine turning away from Russia but with US political and military support it is understandable how Russia did this under provocation. But what Estonia and Latvia worry about doesn't mean something will or is likely to happen. I am not sure what you mean about nuclear weapons. If the use of nuclear weapons ever became close to happening that demonstrates a utter failure of Russian AND western state's handling of this. The very idea that this conflict could lead to what should be unthinkable says a lot about the problems here. If this is something that could easily escalate to the use of nuclear weapons then negotiations should have started many months ago involving the US. If Putin was to be overthrown then any future Russian regime would likely want to hold on to these annexed regimes.
  4. I don't agree with this idea that Russia would be conquering Europe if Ukraine fell. I haven't come across anything that points to that. All sounds far fetched. Ukraine isn't in NATO but Poland is. Any conflict there would be war with the West. Even with Ukraine, it's quite a different thing to conquer another country than it is to impose a client state or friendly state. The men may have a sense of purpose and be disciplined after this but from the looks of things this won't be until plenty of men, women, and children continue to be killed. There is little noble about this conflict. It's a disaster for Russia, the Ukraine and for Europe. China, the US and India are doing well from it though. It's just a shame how quiet people are for wanting peace and how in this country (and the UK) there is little thought to the conflict other than vague notion of supporting Ukraine but to what end I don't know. What exactly are the Ukraine's aims? I can't see the Ukraine shifting the Russians out of the Donbas, nevermind the Crimea, and then the Ukraine will have to deal with partisan fighting in the Donbas even if it did push the Russians out. I think the best the Ukraine might get is to accept autonomy for the Donbas within the Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and to stay neutral.
  5. I don't see how that would be sensible in any way. The world is heading towards climate disaster and that has accelerated because of this war and because of how Europe and the US have dealt with it.
  6. I am trying to understand where you're coming from with this. We could talk about the treatment of people in many countries who are killed or even oppressed by their governments but is invasion by another country justified if it is incidental that such killings or oppression stop?
  7. I do agree that Blair is a war criminal, as is Bush. But how would the most powerful nation and its trusty lapdog have been brought to account for disregarding international law at that time? It is different when you have those powers trying to indict someone in a weaker country, like what happened with Serbia. It's just hypocrisy. It's why the Western feigned outrage over Putin's invasion and talk if sovereignty is laughable coming from Britain. and the United States. The Iraq War was no more justifiable than the Ukrainian War.
  8. I don't think the protest is supposed to simply anti-royalist but about the Isle of Man as an imperial possession and how it is an affront, or at least depressing, to Manx nationalists. Maybe it is a good for a bit of historical awareness for the Manx people. I sympathise with that somewhat but then the Island is so much like little England now that I doubt Manx nationalism has much traction. And even many Manx people, maybe owing to lack of education in politics and history, don't remark upon the absurdity of Tynwald being a national day yet think it's appropriate to have the symbols of English imperialism present in the form of the armed forces and British dignitaries.
  9. I've had a good read of the posts about the protests and I think that John Wright and Helix are bang on with their assessment of it. A few posters here though seem to commenting on the public perceptions of this protest and how it doesn't do the cause any good. I am not sure what cause they are referring to but it seems to be implied that this is a cause involving support or acceptance from community. I may be wrong in understanding those comments in that way but that's not what Pride is about I don't think those two protesters were attention seekers at all. I only know one of them but I can't think that that's the case. He seems to have more understanding and interest in LGBT politics than most people do. Most LGBT people don't really understand the whole problem with Police being at Pride. Neither do they see a problem with corporations advertising themselves at what is supposed to be a political event. LGBT politics has, for a long time, focused very heavily on equality politics so this is not surprising. People don't really know much about the history of LGBT politics. For most people Pride does mean important things such as visibility and maybe some thought to celebrating where history has taken us but most people don't know much about the radical politics that used to drive Pride. In the UK, there are Prides that have the Police and corporations as part of the parade. This is still controversial despite it happening and it's why there are alternative pride events arranged by people who feel that Pride is nothing more than corporate and State advertising. Yet the police are only on a float or walking in the parade and not walking amongst everyone.
  10. So is having the say and how do you think it is their interest? The Ukrainians seem to have little say in any of this at all. But what the British government is arguing for is only something that makes their deaths from war more likely. Maybe that's what you think the Ukrainian people want but I doubt it. The quote is a rather silly platitude to be applied here. I can understand the view of it all getting exciting with it being a good versus evil scenario like in some action film but it's not really how the world works. Who are the good men sitting back doing nothing? Those arguing that the Russians need pushing out with even great British supplies are not the good men. It could be said that such a position is criminal when it is patently obvious that this will mean more unnecessary deaths of Ukrainian people and devastation to their country. And the alternative of the very difficult, dangerous and probably stupid idea of pushing Russia out of Ukraine is not just simply doing nothing.
  11. But the alternative of allowing this war to continue is not to do nothing. As I was saying, the best thing is to have this war end. I think all this talk on this forums, in the mainstream media and from the British and US governments that talks of national sovereignty as being the most important matter in all of this is missing the point of who this war affects the most. And rather than having the Ukrainian people and their interests in mind, I think all too many people are latching on the notion of a good versus evil fight and with some sacred value of national sovereignty placed above all else. If people thinks that this is so important that it is worth doing nothing else but arming the Ukrainians then I think that's losing sight of I think that sort of outlook is one that doesn't really place the lives of Ukrainian people that highly. But given the players, it doesn't give much regard to the potential that this could turn into a much bigger war and where the worldwide economic.and environmental damage are already being seen. Though I don't think Russia wants to absorb the Ukraine,Moldova or other nations entirely. I don't understand how this view is quite common. Would anyone expect these lands to ever be entirely subdued by a Russian occupation force? I can't see how. I am not underestimating the Ukrainian desire for independence. There would be constant fighting in those lands in the cause of national independence. A very long and protected conflict that Russia can't afford and where the costs would far outweigh the gains. And it would completely devastate the Ukraine. Is it really the right thing to sit back and watch as either Russia or the Ukraine is destroyed? Is that what the territorial integrity of the Ukraine is worth? And that's setting aside the catastrophic consequences of the war expands.
  12. I cannot believe what the British government is saying about wanting to keep the Ukraine fighting until Russia is eventually turfed out. It just seems idiotic to me. As this continues the rest of Europe is getting more and more involved which is just making things whole war more dangerous. But what about the Ukrainian people? I mean the civilians. Are thousands of them to be disregarded and left to die and millions to be displaced for the sake of restablishing the the earlier territorial control and borders of Ukraine?
  13. No, not at all. I mean for the United States (and China) to put pressure on both countries to come to some form of agreement. The US wouldn't get involved militarily by declaring war, as things stand. It has no reason to do so, thankfully.
  14. The worrying thing with this war is that I am only seeing talk of the fighting and how well or poorly each side is fighting but this war needs to end as soon as possible. It all seems completely nuts. The Ukrainian isn't going to take back the Crimea and the Donbas. A long war of attrition with weapons pumped into the Ukraine has to be avoided at all costs. It doesn't seem like China and the United States want to force negotiation. Yet there is all this hypocrisy and weirdness about outrageous war crimes from the US but it just stands back. The US can end this war but letting it continue is criminal too. Yet US and it's longtime lapdog (Britain) just pour more heat into the war. I don't disagree with giving arms to the Ukraine but the idea that the Ukraine that should be giving arms to crack on wherever the war takes it is dangerous and criminal.
  15. Allegations? I wasn't talking about any allegations. If you think this is part of a some plan to control Eastern Europe, what leads you to think that? It certainly isn't going to be possible. It couldn't happen. That really would start a massive war that Russia would not risk. Russia wouldnt be able to easily control the Ukraine alone, nevermind other European countries too. Even if they weren't NATO countries, Russia doesn't have the economic power to fund a long-term limited war without also suffering serious economic consequences. And the benefits wouldn't be that compelling either.
  • Create New...