Jump to content

La_Dolce_Vita

Regulars
  • Posts

    14,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by La_Dolce_Vita

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Their agency and self-determination has value but to think that should mean that the Ukraine should have been brought into NATO or should be in the future because the population wants that can only make me think that you don't see the Russian point of view of Russia being less well off strategically by having another nation on its borders joining an alliance set up against it. It's an existential threat and at the least limits the scope of Russian military options in the future. It's not going like that. Russia still has a big military (and, most importantly, nuclear weapons). What Russia could do with that military is very important. If the Ukraine was neutralised and the situation with the Donbas resolved, and assurances are given by Russia not to interfere in the Ukraine what's so bad about that? Now there is no guarantee of the future and whether Russia would And what about the population of the other members of NATO and their self-determination. If the path was one where the safety of Europe was made less likely and that was made plain to them then they wouldn't want such a change to NATO. And that's why Ukraine hasn't joined yet, why there were no fixed plans for it to join in the near future, and why when the matter has been part of the casus belli the Western Powers have sensibly backed off. What about Ukrainian self-determination in wanting the West to challenge Russian command of the skies with Western european and American help? A lot of Ukrainians seems to really want it and even the President does it did. Yeah, I wouldn't want to put too much value on fulfilling that request.
  8. Justification for war and having reasons for going to war are not the same, as you know. And war can be and have been justified in different ways depending on what morals and ethics are applied. Was Hitler justified in attacking Poland? No. But were there reasons for it? Obviously. And Hitler wasn't insane. What about the appalling British adventure to the Suez in 1956? In many ways it is similar to what is going on now with the Ukraine and Russia. Do you think Anthony Eden was insane? He had reasons for the invasion and he thought he was right to take military action. The Americans put a stop to it all in 1956 and the British had to go home humiliated. All things being equal, if the events happened fifty years earlier, Britain would have continued with the plan...because it would have had the economic power to do so. I don't think you think that Putin just decided to invade Ukraine just for the hell of it. I wonder from your mention of justification that you're really saying that his war is unjust. It doesn't make him insane to wage it though. And, as an aside, the current Ukrainian war is a crime but British and American talk of self-determination and marking Russia as behaving in a manner completely unlike other countries is just hypocritical and rather amusing. Suez isn't that long ago. Neither is Kosovo and Iraq (and Afghanistan) and plenty of other European and US adventures to control, influence and wreak destruction in varying ways and to different degrees. The United States has a fair bit of responsibility for how things have played out here and it should be getting more involved. France has done far better to try to organise negotiations. Up until the present, the US and UK government seem to be fanning the flames more than helping the Ukrainians. Just giving the Ukrainians weapons and only hypocritically marking Russia as an evil state and regime isn't going to help the Ukrainians. But I do wonder whether all of this is part of the new plan for the US. The US is doing well out of this conflict. It doesn't really have much interest in having this end (soon). Only the possibility of escalation is the problem for the US, everything else is a gift that has fallen into its lap.
  9. I don't know if you're being serious? Of course there are reasons. Where have you picked up that there are none?
  10. He seems to be acting rationally..his actions are not those of someone who is deranged or mad. It seems to point more to a miscalculation of the opponent militarily. I say this assuming the war aims are to remove the current Ukrainian regime, reinforce the autonomy of the Donbas by military occupation and to consolidate Russian control of the Crimea and to do all this by getting control of all major cities in east and south Ukraine to force Ukraine to come to its terms on these matters. The Ukraine has not capitulated so Russia has miscalculated. But Russia has forced Zelensky to openly recognise that it can't join NATO and it now has troops north of Crimea and more in the Donbas. I imagine the Ukrainians will be even more eager to join NATO. But their wishes shouldn't be granted just because it is what they want. Why should they? Anyway, the possibility of joining has been taken away for the foreseeable now anyway. Remaining true to a peace is all dowe to whether Russia achieves its aims.
  11. Russia would like regime change. That isn't going to happen. And Russia has paid a big price for war (and its economic and non-economic costs will carry on for a long while). It's the Crimea that's the problem. The Ukraine staying neutral is agreeable to all. The Donbas situation is Russia is not like the Soviet Union immediately after WW2, it wouldn't have the ability to occupy or absorb any but the smallest of nations or countries.
  12. Someone else has mentioned trust and I don't really see how trust is so important in this and in this arena. Shouldn't it be a matter of simply expecting that statesmen will act rationally? Trusting them sounds odd. Trust them to adhere to what they said they were going to do? Just seems a bit foolish that. Yes, you can appease. It is an option. I would think it the best one here.
  13. I don't think it is down to them though, is it? If the rules and systems are those which are wrongfully discriminatory then it's a legal problem but also a moral and ethical one.
  14. Given the stakes, it would better for the US to not push Russia away and condemn the country with hypocritical speeches about democracy and a rules-based international system. The invasion and the war are war crimes and not just but we are still hearing about this and hearing about it as if it is unusual. FFS, however small the chance, the potential for this to escalate is real and that could mean the use of nuclear weapons. The US ought to be making every effort to broker an agreement between Russia and Ukraine. No serious efforts seem to have been made. If this goes on longer then the Ukrainian people (and the rest of the world) are only to suffer more. Ukrainian neutrality, recognised autonomy of the Donbass and possible annexation of the Crimea might have to be accepted.
  15. It's not a Council thing; it's all across the Island. It's Tynwald that brought in the means testing. Ramsey and Peel, etc, all do the same thing.
  16. And 'should of' and 'would of' is becoming so prevalent in social media and other 'lower plane' writing that I think it will be accepted far sooner than the more educated (about it) would wish.
  17. I don't know if I'm missing the point of the conversation but with what someone mentioned before, I do think that if someone is genetically and, therefore, in the vast majority of instances, anatomically male then I can't thinking that it doesn't seem right that the person should be accepted to compete in matches of strength (and physical endurance, maybe?) against cis-women. If that person has the advantage of a bodily development that would confer an advantage then it does seem a difficult matter to consider and decide.
  18. In America though it is far more common in writing.
  19. And what about the unnecessary 'of' when said as :...off of...' that's popular in America?
  20. i am trying to recall now what the scope of the legislation was but I think all this came in following 11 September attacks where the US and UK exploited the circumstances to introduce laws or change laws all in the name of protecting the public but at great cost our rights. A lot of stuff in those Patriot is still active. Not sure how things compare in the UK. Difficult to get rid of these laws now.
  21. Is there a law? Wasn't there something that was going to be put through the House of Keys about animal cruelty and it went nowhere? I think it was going to mirror UK legislation. When I read about it having been shot then noticed the location I did wonder. I'd like to think someone didn't do that on purpose because it is just such a...knuckle-dragger thing to do. Could it have been a local farmer? But then I didn't think it likely a farmer would be already out with a gun or would have ran back in the house.
  22. https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-news/wallaby-found-after-being-shot/ I thought this was really sad. Just the thought of an animal slowly dying like that and that someone could have shot the wallaby on purpose? I wonder whether it had come down the glen or come down from the hills.
  23. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/15/zelensky-remarks-ukraine-nato-membership-russian-invasion/ That was from today. Though joining NATO was never going to be something that the West would have wanted for Ukraine. They could make pronouncements how it might be something for the future but it's so provocative for Russia that it just isn't beneficial.
  24. The NATO members are not keen to have Ukraine join. And Zelensky has now seemed to recognise that Ukraine isn't wanted yet. The inflammatory problem here is that the US has kept it on the table. It's the Dombas and, much more so, the Crimea that are going to tougher problems to solve. Well...supposed Russian designs on Alaska and California are not to be taken seriously. It sounds rather silly to me. I am no fan of Trump but would he be a worse President to have in this situation? I don't know. It's the democrats who usually spout the hypocritically nonsense about sovereignty and wars for humanitarian causes. I don't think you'd get that with Trump.
  25. I would expect the US to be involved. It has a vested interest in what happens with Ukraine with it (the US) being the leader of the West and wishing to continue that role. A European military matter is very much an American one. And with its economic and military power plus its political clout, it should be involved in trying to defuse this situation. I don't know how much trust matters, if you're not meaning that the participants might not trust each other to carry out their agreements. The US could do with trying to find out what Russia can accept. Ukrainian neutrality is an easy one. Somehow Russia has to be given enough that it won't look to have been defeated.
×
×
  • Create New...