Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think this makes the threat more real than less real. And I think China and India’s role on that might be crucial. The shorter this war drags on the less chance for a nuclear accident of that sort.

Russia has its hands full with Ukraine. Why should they want to widen the war to a nuclear exchange in which there will be no winner, only losers?

+ I don’t like this new arms race between the West and China either. I think we should be focusing our efforts on our energy transition rather than on a new cold-war with China.

Right, I'd rather not spend money on weapons if we could afford not to ... but given China's flexing of muscle in the waters off Southeast Asia, not to mention is increased military intimidation of Taiwan, makes me doubt whether a cold war is avoidable.

 
So if Xi is clever enough to see these things (I think his predecessors would have seen it) there might be a change for the better within one year or so. If not, I personally am not sure where this will lead us either
 

Xi's certainly clever enough to see that. It's just whether or not that fits in with his aims.

Israel’s hands are tied because of the Russian military presence is Syria
+ They are facing an internal political crisis
+ No one knows what they are going to do if Iran pushes it’s nuclear ambitions even further.

I suspect that this news was floated in the hopes of distracting the public from the demonstrations about their courts.

[Irreligious Atheist]

This has been one of the more tiresome bits of bullshit about the war.  The us scuttled some peace deal that vlad would never have stuck with even if it existed.  Okay, how?  By saying we'd give them weapons?  Think it through.....

Of course, there's a fantastic chance the peace deal would not have held. I think we're far beyond actually talking about the peace deal here though. That's just looping and we've been there, done that. What we've been doing the past several pages, rather, is debating how we know what's true, and how we can find out what's true in the world (or most certainly true). And Thump has made it clear that he only intends to play jury foreperson, to the point where Casey Anthony or OJ or the mob boss would get a free pass because they were at least a little bit careful and perhaps left an inch of room for doubt. If his bar for knowing what's going on in the world is me literally having to provide video of Zelenski getting being tied up and getting his balls electrocuted by Johnson, then I'm afraid Thump is going to end up knowing very little about the world he inhabits.

By giving them weapons, yes. The contention was never that Zelenski was tied up and had his testicles electrocuted until he gave in or anything like that. The British PM, likely speaking on behalf of NATO and especially the US, came in and said that if you want our full support, we're not going along with any BS peace deal, and we'll give you all you need to fight the war, because as Johnson was quoted saying, the world must avoid any peace deal at all costs. And the West can be pretty darn good at persuasion, or making you an offer that you can't refuse. Ergo, NATO scuttled the peace deal.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...022-06-07/

"He said it was vital that President Zelenskiy was not pressured into accepting a bad peace, noting that bad peace deals do not last. He said the world must avoid any outcome where Putin's unwarranted aggression appears to have paid off," the spokesman said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And Thump has made it clear that he only intends to play jury foreperson, to the point where Casey Anthony or OJ or the mob boss would get a free pass because they were at least a little bit careful and perhaps left an inch of room for doubt.

Egregious misunderstanding seems to be your superpower.

You seem to have forgotten that Ukraine's demand or the return of all conquered areas including Crimea would be a condition for these talks to succeed. The certainly knew such a condition would be rejected by the Russians.

Your attempt to deny Ukrainian agency dovetails nicely with Kremlin talking-points, though.

[Irreligious Atheist]

And Thump has made it clear that he only intends to play jury foreperson, to the point where Casey Anthony or OJ or the mob boss would get a free pass because they were at least a little bit careful and perhaps left an inch of room for doubt.

Egregious misunderstanding seems to be your superpower.

You seem to have forgotten that Ukraine's demand or the return of all conquered areas including Crimea would be a condition for these talks to succeed. The certainly knew such a condition would be rejected by the Russians.

Your attempt to deny Ukrainian agency dovetails nicely with Kremlin talking-points, though.

No, the peace deal Zelenski was negotiating would not have given Crimea back to Ukraine. That is a more recent position by Ukraine, that they must have Crimea back. The original peace deal would have actually taken even more land than that from Ukraine, and Ukraine would have promised not to join NATO. That was the deal on the table at the time, and reports say it was most likely going to go forward, until the British PM showed up for the meeting with Z.

But again, we're looping by continuing to go over that. No one here is disputing that the deal would have been highly likely to fail and fold. The debate the past few pages has been how we know what's true, and showing that we will never know much about the going ons of the world if we have no ability to read between the lines. Casey Anthony was involved in the death of her damn child, and I don't even need to know how the child died (bc the evidence was washed away) to read between the lines. What's crystal clear is crystal clear. As jury foreperson, however, would I have voted to convict Casey Anthony for murder? Nope. We don't even have evidence of how the child died, so I can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder even took place. Could have been an accidental drowning or whatever. Like the killing of Kayley Anthony, can I provide a transcript of all that was said in the meeting between the British PM and Zelenski? Nope. But I can read between the lines, and me pointing out the obvious at the time has now been confirmed by the Israeli PM.

And I think we are doing plenty here in Canada for Ukrainians by taking thousands of them in and giving them safe haven. That is not nothing. In my city, there are more Ukrainians now I think here than there are in any other town outside of Ukraine. We're becoming a little mini-Ukraine here and it's cool to see it. I'm happy for these lovely folks. I don't need to back their war and show up at their protests against Putin to prove that I care about them, however. A Muslim family was run over by a radicalized person in my city as well, and that's sad as hell, but sadly I can not stand with the Muslim community here when they are throwing protests and now trying to change the laws to make laws to fight Islamophobia and trying to clamp down on speech (thankfully it's been voted down thus far), but I will support them as a people nonetheless and invite more and more of them in as refugees, even though I think they're very wrong on this issue.

Administrator Notice
Slur replaced.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Egregious misunderstanding seems to be your superpower.

You seem to have forgotten that Ukraine's demand or the return of all conquered areas including Crimea would be a condition for these talks to succeed. The certainly knew such a condition would be rejected by the Russians.

Your attempt to deny Ukrainian agency dovetails nicely with Kremlin talking-points, though.

No, the peace deal Zelenski was negotiating would not have given Crimea back to Ukraine. That is a more recent position by Ukraine, that they must have Crimea back. The original peace deal would have actually taken even more land than that from Ukraine, and Ukraine would have promised not to join NATO. That was the deal on the table at the time, and reports say it was most likely going to go forward, until the British PM showed up for the meeting with Z.

But again, we're looping by continuing to go over that. No one here is disputing that the deal would have been highly likely to fail and fold. The debate the past few pages has been how we know what's true, and showing that we will never know much about the going ons of the world if we have no ability to read between the lines. Casey Anthony was involved in the death of her damn child, and I don't even need to know how the child died (bc the evidence was washed away) to read between the lines. What's crystal clear is crystal clear. As jury foreperson, however, would I have voted to convict Casey Anthony for murder? Nope. We don't even have evidence of how the child died, so I can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder even took place. Could have been an accidental drowning or whatever. Like the killing of Kayley Anthony, can I provide a transcript of all that was said in the meeting between the British PM and Zelenski? Nope. But I can read between the lines, and me pointing out the obvious at the time has now been confirmed by the Israeli PM.

And I think we are doing plenty here in Canada for Ukrainians by taking thousands of them in and giving them safe haven. That is not nothing. In my city, there are more Ukrainians now I think here than there are in any other town outside of Ukraine. We're becoming a little mini-Ukraine here and it's cool to see it. I'm happy for these lovely folks. I don't need to back their war and show up at their protests against Putin to prove that I care about them, however. A Muslim family was run over by a radicalized person in my city as well, and that's sad as hell, but sadly I can not stand with the Muslim community here when they are throwing protests and now trying to change the laws to make laws to fight Islamophobia and trying to clamp down on speech (thankfully it's been voted down thus far), but I will support them as a people nonetheless and invite more and more of them in as refugees, even though I think they're very wrong on this issue.

(Bold mine)

When you were a kid and the bullies at school took your lunch money, did you offer to give them extra money?

Boru

Administrator Notice
Slur replaced.

[Irreligious Atheist]

No, the peace deal Zelenski was negotiating would not have given Crimea back to Ukraine. That is a more recent position by Ukraine, that they must have Crimea back. The original peace deal would have actually taken even more land than that from Ukraine, and Ukraine would have promised not to join NATO. That was the deal on the table at the time, and reports say it was most likely going to go forward, until the British PM showed up for the meeting with Z.

But again, we're looping by continuing to go over that. No one here is disputing that the deal would have been highly likely to fail and fold. The debate the past few pages has been how we know what's true, and showing that we will never know much about the going ons of the world if we have no ability to read between the lines. Casey Anthony was involved in the death of her damn child, and I don't even need to know how the child died (bc the evidence was washed away) to read between the lines. What's crystal clear is crystal clear. As jury foreperson, however, would I have voted to convict Casey Anthony for murder? Nope. We don't even have evidence of how the child died, so I can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder even took place. Could have been an accidental drowning or whatever. Like the killing of Kayley Anthony, can I provide a transcript of all that was said in the meeting between the British PM and Zelenski? Nope. But I can read between the lines, and me pointing out the obvious at the time has now been confirmed by the Israeli PM.

And I think we are doing plenty here in Canada for Ukrainians by taking thousands of them in and giving them safe haven. That is not nothing. In my city, there are more Ukrainians now I think here than there are in any other town outside of Ukraine. We're becoming a little mini-Ukraine here and it's cool to see it. I'm happy for these lovely folks. I don't need to back their war and show up at their protests against Putin to prove that I care about them, however. A Muslim family was run over by a radicalized person in my city as well, and that's sad as hell, but sadly I can not stand with the Muslim community here when they are throwing protests and now trying to change the laws to make laws to fight Islamophobia and trying to clamp down on speech (thankfully it's been voted down thus far), but I will support them as a people nonetheless and invite more and more of them in as refugees, even though I think they're very wrong on this issue.

(Bold mine)

When you were a kid and the bullies at school took your lunch money, did you offer to give them extra money?

Boru

Zelenski was the one looking for that peace deal and just about willing to give those things up, so you'd have to ask him. I can't read his mind.

If my friend is getting beaten up in the school yard or getting his lunch money taken, I'm going to step in and try to stop it. If someone across the ocean is getting their lunch money taken, I'm not necessarily going to step in, because the world is a harsh place, and then you die.

Administrator Notice
Slur replaced.

[Silver]

Honestly, Trump is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and the free world.

Our government, but more importantly the intelligence organizations, are a threat to themselves and this country. If a theocracy erupts, it will be because the clear and present uprising of religious/conservative nationalism isn't being considered a real threat.

[The Grand Nudger]

This has been one of the more tiresome bits of bullshit about the war.  The us scuttled some peace deal that vlad would never have stuck with even if it existed.  Okay, how?  By saying we'd give them weapons?  Think it through.....

By giving them weapons, yes. 

Oh, so..not so much scuttled a peace deal as the us gave ukraine an option other than surrender?  The us scuttled a surrender deal..which you think wouldn't have held.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, the peace deal Zelenski was negotiating would not have given Crimea back to Ukraine. That is a more recent position by Ukraine, that they must have Crimea back. The original peace deal would have actually taken even more land than that from Ukraine, and Ukraine would have promised not to join NATO. That was the deal on the table at the time, and reports say it was most likely going to go forward, until the British PM showed up for the meeting with Z.

But again, we're looping by continuing to go over that. No one here is disputing that the deal would have been highly likely to fail and fold. The debate the past few pages has been how we know what's true, and showing that we will never know much about the going ons of the world if we have no ability to read between the lines. Casey Anthony was involved in the death of her damn child, and I don't even need to know how the child died (bc the evidence was washed away) to read between the lines. What's crystal clear is crystal clear. As jury foreperson, however, would I have voted to convict Casey Anthony for murder? Nope. We don't even have evidence of how the child died, so I can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder even took place. Could have been an accidental drowning or whatever. Like the killing of Kayley Anthony, can I provide a transcript of all that was said in the meeting between the British PM and Zelenski? Nope. But I can read between the lines, and me pointing out the obvious at the time has now been confirmed by the Israeli PM.

Please cite your sources for your claims, with reputable links, and explain why you're red-herringing this by bringing in an entirely unrelated American murder case as evidence that you're somehow right here.

Here was Ukraine's viewpoint:

Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Zelensky, told the Financial Times that any deal would involve “the troops of the Russian Federation in any case leaving the territory of Ukraine” captured since the invasion began on February 24 — namely southern regions along the Azov and Black seas, as well as territory to the east and north of Kyiv.

Ukraine would maintain its armed forces but would be obliged to stay outside military alliances such as Nato and refrain from hosting foreign military bases on its territory.

[...]

The biggest sticking point remains Russia’s demand that Ukraine recognise its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the independence of two separatist statelets in the eastern Donbas border region.

Ukraine has refused but was willing to compartmentalise the issue, Podolyak said.

https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375...2b7fa77ef1

... and:

Another source of dispute is the status of Crimea, which was seized and annexed by Russia in 2014, and the separatist-held Donbas region in eastern Ukraine, which Russia recognises as independent. Ukraine considers both part of its territory.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40830248.html

Note that both articles are dated early March 2022, showing your claim that the retention of Crimea is a later add-on is wrong. You're either uninformed, or dissimulative.

Either way, you're simply not correct. Ukraine regarded and stills regards Crimea as a sticking point, and the Russian refusal to acknowledge this, in the reportage linked above, shows you wrong. That is what sticks in the Russian craw. I'm sure the Ukrainians will pull it out, barbs and all.

Looking forward to your talking points at that time, when you must once again conform to the pigs on the animal farm. Now when did that Israeli report back about negotiations breaking down?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If my friend is getting beaten up in the school yard or getting his lunch money taken, I'm going to step in and try to stop it.

Rii-i-i-i-i-ght.