| [Redacted] on 15:17 - Aug 16 with 1379 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:05 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
Thanks for clarifying your position.
I don't believe I have ever said that Russia was at war with NATO, it's clearly not correct and I don't believe it's something I would say. Given this perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?
One can only go with what you post here and those posts have mostly been about making concessions to Russia to end the war. Without clarification (which I still don't really think you have provided) then that position seems to be sympathetic to Russia as it rewards them and penalises Ukraine.
I can fully understand you would want an end to the war with your personal circumstances and especially as a parent but I think stating that the reasoning for the war is capitalists arms deals or construction contracts is also pretty offensive unless you have some pretty solid evidence to back it up. Let's not forget, there would be no war if Russia hadn't invaded.
SB |
[Redacted] |  | |  |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:21 - Aug 16 with 1362 views | DJR |
One of the issues I have with this conflict is that anyone who suggests anything other than all-out victory for Ukraine is labelled a Putin-apologist. Indeed, I don't think I've read a UK media article which has taken a different line to all-out victory.
Leaving aside the fact that it seems to me we have to deal with the real world, the effective suppression of different or even nuanced views appears to me to be completely contrary to the Western liberalism we are supposed to fighting for in the Ukraine.
It brings to mind the words of George Orwell
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness"
And we mustn't forget the words of John Stuart Mill.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:22]
|  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:22 - Aug 16 with 1354 views | StokieBlue |
I'm not sure that really answers any of my questions and it certainly doesn't qualify as evidence for your stance which is rather conspiratorial and could be offensive to many.
As for your last sentence, I have no idea why you think that's relevant?
To be honest, your posts are getting rather weird so I think I'll leave it there. Have a good rest of the day.
SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:23]
|  |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:23 - Aug 16 with 1350 views | Blueschev |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:08 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
I think we are at the point where their stated war aims are almost irrelevant. Ukraine wasn't close to joining NATA anyway.
You do have a point though, joined NATO might not been seen as a direct reward to Russia but in the end it has to be seen as one: Ukraine would have likely joined at some point in the future and this way Russia get the compensation of two large pieces of Ukraine in exchange for something that would have happened anyway.
It's fairly clear from the article that the Ukrainians see it as a non-starter, at least at the moment.
SB |
I don't really see a way in which this conflict ends to be honest. I can't see Russia ever returning Crimea, or accepting Ukrainian membership of Nato. At the same time I can't see a demoralised, unmotivated and poorly trained / equipped Russian army, unsure of even its own mission aims defeating a highly motivated albeit smaller Ukrainian opponent being supplied with modern equipment from the West. Quite depressing stuff really. |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:25 - Aug 16 with 1321 views | blueasfook |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:23 - Aug 16 by Blueschev |
I don't really see a way in which this conflict ends to be honest. I can't see Russia ever returning Crimea, or accepting Ukrainian membership of Nato. At the same time I can't see a demoralised, unmotivated and poorly trained / equipped Russian army, unsure of even its own mission aims defeating a highly motivated albeit smaller Ukrainian opponent being supplied with modern equipment from the West. Quite depressing stuff really. |
Could become like North/South Korea, a war that has technically never ended. Even though not an active conflict at the moment, just a kind of stalemate |  |
| |
| [Redacted] on 15:46 - Aug 16 with 1283 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:22 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
I'm not sure that really answers any of my questions and it certainly doesn't qualify as evidence for your stance which is rather conspiratorial and could be offensive to many.
As for your last sentence, I have no idea why you think that's relevant?
To be honest, your posts are getting rather weird so I think I'll leave it there. Have a good rest of the day.
SB [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:23]
|
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:54 - Aug 16 with 1264 views | blueasfook |
"You strike me as a passive aggressive bully that hates to be disagreed with. "
Bingo! | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:20 - Aug 16 with 1227 views | StokieBlue |
So in summary:
- You accuse me of posting something I never did as you clearly got me mixed up with another poster.
- You think because the US arms industry makes money from helping Ukraine defend itself from external aggression that's evidence of some conspiracy that the West is behind the war. It's not - it's a natural extension of having to build weapons to repel the Russians. Correlation doesn't equal causation. There are no extra profits if Russia doesn't invade.
- You've not posted a single actual piece of evidence for your outlandish claims just "draw the dots" circumstantial stuff which doesn't even tally when you consider it.
After all that it's unbelievably hypocritical to say others are bullies or don't like being disagreed with. Your posts on this thread have been very aggressive to the point of you calling others offensive whilst posting pretty offensive "theories" yourself without any actual evidence.
I'll be more than happy not to participate in "your threads" if that's how you wish to conduct them.
SB | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:24 - Aug 16 with 1202 views | RadioOrwell |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:21 - Aug 16 by DJR |
One of the issues I have with this conflict is that anyone who suggests anything other than all-out victory for Ukraine is labelled a Putin-apologist. Indeed, I don't think I've read a UK media article which has taken a different line to all-out victory.
Leaving aside the fact that it seems to me we have to deal with the real world, the effective suppression of different or even nuanced views appears to me to be completely contrary to the Western liberalism we are supposed to fighting for in the Ukraine.
It brings to mind the words of George Orwell
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness"
And we mustn't forget the words of John Stuart Mill.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:22]
|
It depends what you mean. "All out victory" is a highly emotive phrase. To me it means "defend yourself from and remove an occupying force".
If you want to argue for less than that ie: let Russia take land from Ukraine then that's up to you. I would like to hear your arguments for letting that happen and how that might pan out in the years ahead.
Personally I'm not familiar with any more nuanced argument than that. |  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:38 - Aug 16 with 1183 views | gordon |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:55 - Aug 16 by blueasfook |
A war between NATO and Russia would be game over for us all I think. |
That's why it's so unlikely that Russia would invade a NATO country. |  | | |
| [Redacted] on 16:39 - Aug 16 with 1181 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:20 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
So in summary:
- You accuse me of posting something I never did as you clearly got me mixed up with another poster.
- You think because the US arms industry makes money from helping Ukraine defend itself from external aggression that's evidence of some conspiracy that the West is behind the war. It's not - it's a natural extension of having to build weapons to repel the Russians. Correlation doesn't equal causation. There are no extra profits if Russia doesn't invade.
- You've not posted a single actual piece of evidence for your outlandish claims just "draw the dots" circumstantial stuff which doesn't even tally when you consider it.
After all that it's unbelievably hypocritical to say others are bullies or don't like being disagreed with. Your posts on this thread have been very aggressive to the point of you calling others offensive whilst posting pretty offensive "theories" yourself without any actual evidence.
I'll be more than happy not to participate in "your threads" if that's how you wish to conduct them.
SB |
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:53 - Aug 16 with 1132 views | StokieBlue |
With regards to "linear thinking", we have a fundamental difference in how we approach things. What is known at the moment is factual evidence, what you deduce with the extra elements you've outlined is speculation and when it comes to levels of evidence they simply cannot be held at the same level of authority in my opinion.
It's fine to speculate but when asked for further evidence I don't think that should be considered offensive or aggressive, it's simply asking you to back up your speculation.
With regards to communication, that is fair enough and in future if I think you're not making sense or I don't understand the point you're making I'll ask you to rephrase so that we can get to an understanding of your position.
I have no desire to argue, just debate with reasoned evidence. If you wish speculate then that is fine but I would often seek more than implied correlations without too much substance as something to back up the speculation.
Enjoy your evening.
SB | |
| |
| [Redacted] on 16:56 - Aug 16 with 1114 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:53 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
With regards to "linear thinking", we have a fundamental difference in how we approach things. What is known at the moment is factual evidence, what you deduce with the extra elements you've outlined is speculation and when it comes to levels of evidence they simply cannot be held at the same level of authority in my opinion.
It's fine to speculate but when asked for further evidence I don't think that should be considered offensive or aggressive, it's simply asking you to back up your speculation.
With regards to communication, that is fair enough and in future if I think you're not making sense or I don't understand the point you're making I'll ask you to rephrase so that we can get to an understanding of your position.
I have no desire to argue, just debate with reasoned evidence. If you wish speculate then that is fine but I would often seek more than implied correlations without too much substance as something to back up the speculation.
Enjoy your evening.
SB |
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 17:10 - Aug 16 with 1086 views | DJR |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:24 - Aug 16 by RadioOrwell |
It depends what you mean. "All out victory" is a highly emotive phrase. To me it means "defend yourself from and remove an occupying force".
If you want to argue for less than that ie: let Russia take land from Ukraine then that's up to you. I would like to hear your arguments for letting that happen and how that might pan out in the years ahead.
Personally I'm not familiar with any more nuanced argument than that. |
In an ideal world what Russia has done (including in 2014) wouldn't have happened but it has, and it is not clear to me that Russia will ever be removed from the entire country.
That being the case, I think it is perfectly acceptable to at least consider other outcomes, but of course, if Ukraine wants to carry on with the conflict it is perfectly entitled to.
As regards wider implications, I think the only good thing to come out of the war is that it has shown that the Russian military is pretty inept, which in my view offers some hope for other countries on its Western borders, backed as they are by NATO. | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 17:13 - Aug 16 with 1079 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 14:18 - Aug 16 by Blueschev |
Taking any morality out of it, I'm not sure Putin's fear of Ukraine becoming a Nato member is irrational given Russia's history. I don't believe the Russians would accept it under any circumstances anyway. |
Of course its irrational. Nato is not a threat to russia, with or without Ukraine, except to the extent Russia invades and attacks its neighbours. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 17:16]
|  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 18:15 - Aug 16 with 1030 views | factual_blue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:21 - Aug 16 by DJR |
One of the issues I have with this conflict is that anyone who suggests anything other than all-out victory for Ukraine is labelled a Putin-apologist. Indeed, I don't think I've read a UK media article which has taken a different line to all-out victory.
Leaving aside the fact that it seems to me we have to deal with the real world, the effective suppression of different or even nuanced views appears to me to be completely contrary to the Western liberalism we are supposed to fighting for in the Ukraine.
It brings to mind the words of George Orwell
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness"
And we mustn't forget the words of John Stuart Mill.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:22]
|
As a parallel, there was the potential for a settlement to WW1 in 1916. However, Lloyd George and others felt that so many had died that it would dishonour them to settle for anything else than total victory. |  |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 18:22 - Aug 16 with 1008 views | DJR |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 18:15 - Aug 16 by factual_blue |
As a parallel, there was the potential for a settlement to WW1 in 1916. However, Lloyd George and others felt that so many had died that it would dishonour them to settle for anything else than total victory. |
I must admit I didn't know that. | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 19:10 - Aug 16 with 968 views | RadioOrwell |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 17:10 - Aug 16 by DJR |
In an ideal world what Russia has done (including in 2014) wouldn't have happened but it has, and it is not clear to me that Russia will ever be removed from the entire country.
That being the case, I think it is perfectly acceptable to at least consider other outcomes, but of course, if Ukraine wants to carry on with the conflict it is perfectly entitled to.
As regards wider implications, I think the only good thing to come out of the war is that it has shown that the Russian military is pretty inept, which in my view offers some hope for other countries on its Western borders, backed as they are by NATO. |
I also think it is wise to consider other outcomes. I haven't heard of any that are either Russia fully in or fully out.
I suppose Russia keeping Crimea is some kind of compromise but I don't know what Ukraine think about that. | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 19:43 - Aug 16 with 944 views | JohnTy |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 19:10 - Aug 16 by RadioOrwell |
I also think it is wise to consider other outcomes. I haven't heard of any that are either Russia fully in or fully out.
I suppose Russia keeping Crimea is some kind of compromise but I don't know what Ukraine think about that. |
The Institute of Strategic Studies has just published an article suggesting this may be a way out - it calls it the "Adenauer option" - draws an analogy with the negotiations in the 1950's which left Germany divided for 30 years but allowed West Germany to enter NATO. It follows the Kissinger line that admitting Ukraine into NATO would be both a way of restraining it as well as of defending it.
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2023/07/how-to-end-a-war-so
Of course in the world of realpolitik Ukraine is far less important to the US than Germany was, and conversely it, and particularly Crimea, is far more important to Russia. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 19:56]
|  | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 19:53 - Aug 16 with 925 views | RadioOrwell |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 16:38 - Aug 16 by gordon |
That's why it's so unlikely that Russia would invade a NATO country. |
And perversely is exactly what will take Ukraine into NATO - the exact opposite of what Russia wants. | | | |
| [Redacted] on 20:09 - Aug 16 with 907 views | victorywilhappen |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 19:43 - Aug 16 by JohnTy |
The Institute of Strategic Studies has just published an article suggesting this may be a way out - it calls it the "Adenauer option" - draws an analogy with the negotiations in the 1950's which left Germany divided for 30 years but allowed West Germany to enter NATO. It follows the Kissinger line that admitting Ukraine into NATO would be both a way of restraining it as well as of defending it.
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2023/07/how-to-end-a-war-so
Of course in the world of realpolitik Ukraine is far less important to the US than Germany was, and conversely it, and particularly Crimea, is far more important to Russia. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 19:56]
|
[Redacted] | | | |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 21:20 - Aug 16 with 855 views | factual_blue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:25 - Aug 16 by blueasfook |
Could become like North/South Korea, a war that has technically never ended. Even though not an active conflict at the moment, just a kind of stalemate |
The First Anglo-Dutch War started in 1651, and was not totally concluded until 1986. | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 21:22 - Aug 16 with 843 views | factual_blue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 18:22 - Aug 16 by DJR |
I must admit I didn't know that. |
There's an article about it in the latest edition of the BBC History magazine. A quick ten minute read in the local WH Smilth.... | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 21:32 - Aug 16 with 836 views | factual_blue |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:08 - Aug 16 by StokieBlue |
I think we are at the point where their stated war aims are almost irrelevant. Ukraine wasn't close to joining NATA anyway.
You do have a point though, joined NATO might not been seen as a direct reward to Russia but in the end it has to be seen as one: Ukraine would have likely joined at some point in the future and this way Russia get the compensation of two large pieces of Ukraine in exchange for something that would have happened anyway.
It's fairly clear from the article that the Ukrainians see it as a non-starter, at least at the moment.
SB |
It's a carrot and stick scenario. You give up some space, and you get to join NATO and protect your remaining space.
The key would be what the Ukraine might be willing to give up. Maybe that what was taken in 2014? That's possibly the maximum for the Ukraine, but possibly a minimum for Russia.
The other concern for NATO and the Ukraine is what if trump's hint/threat to withdraw from NATO becomes reality in a couple of years? | |
| |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 21:54 - Aug 16 with 815 views | DJR |
| Ukraine/ Nato/ Surrender/ Compromise.....? on 15:21 - Aug 16 by DJR |
One of the issues I have with this conflict is that anyone who suggests anything other than all-out victory for Ukraine is labelled a Putin-apologist. Indeed, I don't think I've read a UK media article which has taken a different line to all-out victory.
Leaving aside the fact that it seems to me we have to deal with the real world, the effective suppression of different or even nuanced views appears to me to be completely contrary to the Western liberalism we are supposed to fighting for in the Ukraine.
It brings to mind the words of George Orwell
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas of which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness"
And we mustn't forget the words of John Stuart Mill.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 15:22]
|
As if to prove what George Orwell said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/16/nato-official-suggests-ukraine-cou
And the IISS article, published on 11 July, appears not to have been picked up anywhere in the British media. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 22:12]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
