advertisement


Ukraine V

Separate question - why do you refer to yourself in third person? It's weird.

Not only this. I think it also makes it harder for klassik to get his/her points across as many people are less likely to read the posts with any degree of seriousness.
 
In theory. Realty may not be so simple. There is ample evidence to suggest Zelenskyy, Germany, France, and Italy have tried to engage in negotiations, but have certainly not been helped by the US and perhaps have been hampered by the US. The US is not one known to stay out of foreign policy matters and it certainly reasons they won't stay out of a matter they've been deeply involved in for years now.
Regardless, Russia’s words and actions make it unambiguously clear that there is no near term chance of any peace. This war is not about the US, it is about Russia’s aggression.
 
Fairly interesting your position. Listing strings of Russia's misdeeds, but when the U.S. enormous list of ongoing misdeeds, including toppling leaders, arming right-wing (and left-wing) militias, bombing nations on false evidence ('back to the stone age' in some cases), torture, false imprisonment... all of that is 'left-wing' hatred? All those things you list have been overseen by successive U.S. governments with UK/EU support in many cases.

Why is Ukraine so important, where Syria wasn't? Or Yemen, of Palestine...
Last question is easy - because they are far away from the centers of power and Ukraine is smack dab in the center of Europe.

The second one is really for you. Do American misdeeds exonerate Russia? Is America doing X proof also of Y and Z?
 
Blimey! You believe there is no evidence of any particular case of US military and economic interference in other countries? Really?

Of course the US has interfered in other countries. IMO, the important question is whether or not this history is somehow a reason for not helping Ukraine repel the Russian invaders. I don't see any logic in that at all.

It's been a while since I posted on this thread, so I will repeat what I believe. First, Russia started this war (twice) and is 100% to blame for the ongoing killing and destruction. Russia's behavior during the war has been nothing short of abominable. Not surprising, of course, given what we saw from them in Syria, Georgia and Chechnya. I believe that all countries, including the US, that are providing military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine are justified in doing so. My only criticism has been that we are not doing enough. Lastly, this war will end when the Ukrainians (and only the Ukrainians) decide it is time to negotiate, and not before. They know better than anyone that giving concessions to Russia now will not lead to a lasting peace. It will only lead to a respite, where Russia can rebuild and rearm before continuing their invasion for a third time.

There is no evidence to suggest Russia is ready to talk before their land grab is complete. There is no evidence to suggest the Ukrainians are willing to concede territory to the invaders. If someone thinks that somehow a peace-for-huge-concessions deal would bring this war to a permanent end, then they really should explain in detail how that will work. I have yet to see any explanation, much less one that would stand up to critical examination.

Lastly, do we really need a new round of whataboutisms? With our former Russian and Serbian posters, haven't we had enough of that already on this thread?
 
Last question is easy - because they are far away from the centers of power and Ukraine is smack dab in the center of Europe.
It's a feeble response though isn't it? Since when did the U.S. bother about certain other countries in central Europe unless it was thought 'strategic' to furthering US. foreign policy aims? And also portrayed as 'our security' rather than 'our interference'. I think if you're honest and have followed this over 15 years or so you'll know why and how this war occurred and what led up to it and who is manipulating it. Which doesn't mean 'Russia innocent', it means many dirty hands, including those flying the flags.
The second one is really for you. Do American misdeeds exonerate Russia? Is America doing X proof also of Y and Z?
They don't, but they are very numerous and continuous for a state claiming to be a human rights example to the world and deciding who is and isn't 'breaking the rules'. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.
 
@Hook

It's Groundhog Day! We're back in February again, revisiting the less than merry-go-round of deflection for the umpteenth time.

John
 
It's a feeble response though isn't it? Since when did the U.S. bother about certain other countries in central Europe unless it was thought 'strategic' to furthering US. foreign policy aims? And also portrayed as 'our security' rather than 'our interference'. I think if you're honest and have followed this over 15 years or so you'll know why and how this war occurred and what led up to it and who is manipulating it. Which doesn't mean 'Russia innocent', it means many dirty hands, including those flying the flags.

They don't, but they are very numerous and continuous for a state claiming to be a human rights example to the world and deciding who is and isn't 'breaking the rules'. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.
I don't see why US (and the West) supporting Europe's largest country (or second largest) against an invasion by a nuclear superpower and pays less attention to Syria is a "feeble explanation." It's entirely correct and appropriate.

I understand that you are seething with hatred against the US. Consider that if we could "trick" Russia into a self-destructive war of choice with a decades-long plan spanning multiple governments, we probably would have cured inflation and cancer...(or, in your view, would have taken over the world and killed everyone)
 
@Hook

It's Groundhog Day! We're back in February again, revisiting the less than merry-go-round of deflection for the umpteenth time.

John
If you wanted to say there's a cookie-cutter simple line to be followed, we knew that. I think Klassik was injecting some reality into the proceedings. The 'crazed Russia' thesis is shallow stuff.
 
It's a feeble response though isn't it? Since when did the U.S. bother about certain other countries in central Europe unless it was thought 'strategic' to furthering US. foreign policy aims? And also portrayed as 'our security' rather than 'our interference'. I think if you're honest and have followed this over 15 years or so you'll know why and how this war occurred and what led up to it and who is manipulating it. Which doesn't mean 'Russia innocent', it means many dirty hands, including those flying the flags.

They don't, but they are very numerous and continuous for a state claiming to be a human rights example to the world and deciding who is and isn't 'breaking the rules'. Glass houses and stones spring to mind.
Simple question, do you think Ukraine is an independent country?
 
Corbyn’s habit of getting on the wrong side of nearly very issue is worse than the statistical probability of chance. For him to presume that he knows better than Zelensky would be laughable if it was not for the seriousness of the situation. What part of Russia invaded Ukraine does he not understand.
 
If you wanted to say there's a cookie-cutter simple line to be followed, we knew that. I think Klassik was injecting some reality into the proceedings. The 'crazed Russia' thesis is shallow stuff.
Occum's razor.

KGB washout with childhood trauma is mistakenly promoted to President by Yeltsin because he seemed "quiet." The psychopath consolidates all power for 7 years then attacks his first country in 2008, slicing off a piece. He then attacks his second country in 2014, taking a lot more land. Finally he attacks for a third time, aiming for full conquest.

The Left: "We are to blame. We should have complimented him more and noticed when he lost weight"
 
What is "peace" in the context of a victim of a crime? Is the sight of a man defending himself too disturbing to the passerbys, so they beg the victim to please give his wallet and car to the criminal to stop this unsightly happening in their wealthy neighborhood?

What does a conflict between multiple nations over a 25-30 year period of time, at the very least, have to do with a man on the street?

The second one is really for you. Do American misdeeds exonerate Russia? Is America doing X proof also of Y and Z?

Klassik will answer this even if it was not addressed to Klassik. The US and Russia are two of the world's biggest arms dealers and are both militarily aggressive. Putin has a poor track record of maintaining international peace, but then the US's record is just as stained, if not more so, during the years that Putin has been in power. It seems to ole' Klassik that Corbyn's whole point is that neither country should be trusted to maintain global peace as neither has much of a record in recent times of achieving or maintaining peace. Both countries are countries of militarization. The US certainly has a history of proxy wars...ones which have caused more international harm than they have solved and have resulted in western arms being used against the west.

It's a feeble response though isn't it? Since when did the U.S. bother about certain other countries in central Europe unless it was thought 'strategic' to furthering US. foreign policy aims?

The US had appropriate foreign policy on this matter during the Bush Sr. and the first Clinton term. Klassik rarely defends either of these presidents, but both nations knew the best way to grow cooperation and development in Eastern Europe was not for the US to impose their will on the region as the US is prone to doing over the last century or so. Things changed in the second Clinton administration and it's been downhill ever since with foreign conflict with Russia almost seeming inevitable.

Naturally, the relationship between the arms industry and the US government must be considered when assessing US foreign policy. The US and the arms companies they supported have profited greatly during these foreign policy blunders and continue to do so given the current circumstances. The current US Secretary of Defense was plucked straight from the board of directors of a war corporation, Raytheon. This is hardly unprecedented in several US administrations through the foreign policy ranks. Even the current US Secretary of State has ties to profiting from foreign conflict.

Ok, so even if there is acceptance that US foreign policy has screwed up over the years in the context of Russia and Ukraine, the answer is what to do about it. Corbyn's approach of diplomacy, perhaps via a strengthened international coalition separate from Russia and the US, seems quite logical. The US's economic sanctions have not exactly proven to be a smashing success in deterring Russia as Russia still has many economic partners around the world who aren't exactly moved by the US's calls for actions against Russia. It's not that countries approve of what Russia has done, but rather they view this as a typical over-aggressive move typical from countries such as the US and Russia. With that in mind, this is hardly unprecedented and countries would rather get on with their business.
 
I don't see why US (and the West) supporting Europe's largest country (or second largest) against an invasion by a nuclear superpower and pays less attention to Syria is a "feeble explanation." It's entirely correct and appropriate.
Could be because you just think some are more worthy than others. Ukraine has been used as buffer by both Russia and EU (e.g. not a member and not considered because then they would have to really act). That so much of this is ignored in the press and commentary betrays a loose grasp of what is going on. Or perhaps framing, since old Deutsche Welle articles take surprisingly different view these days.
I understand that you are seething with hatred against the US. Consider that if we could "trick" Russia into a self-destructive war of choice with a decades-long plan spanning multiple governments, we probably would have cured inflation and cancer...
You understand me wrongly then perhaps? I don't hate the U.S. but I dislike the hypocritical foreign policy as much as I dislike the UK's. I'd have thought anyone would. The last bit is absurd, though consequential. Interesting vocabulary choices too. Goading Russia has been a 60-year U.S. pastime. No time or funding driven to curing cancer...inflation? Another story entirely.
 
Occum's razor.

KGB washout with childhood trauma is mistakenly promoted to President by Yeltsin because he seemed "quiet." The psychopath consolidates all power for 7 years then attacks his first country in 2008, slicing off a piece. He then attacks his second country in 2014, taking a lot more land. Finally he attacks for a third time, aiming for full conquest.

The Left: "We are to blame. We should have complimented him more and noticed when he lost weight"
That guy he'd known for decades? Promoted by the guy the west said was 'stable', but really a drunken neoliberal? Why were all the same leaders photographed not only shaking hands with this madman, but also meeting him at leisure activities? Realpolitik? Don't make me laugh.

Be careful with your razor, it's not a toy.
 
Could be because you just think some are more worthy than others. Ukraine has been used as buffer by both Russia and EU (e.g. not a member and not considered because then they would have to really act). That so much of this is ignored in the press and commentary betrays a loose grasp of what is going on. Or perhaps framing, since old Deutsche Welle articles take surprisingly different view these days.

You understand me wrongly then perhaps? I don't hate the U.S. but I dislike the hypocritical foreign policy as much as I dislike the UK's. I'd have thought anyone would. The last bit is absurd, though consequential. Interesting vocabulary choices too. Goading Russia has been a 60-year U.S. pastime. No time or funding driven to curing cancer...inflation? Another story entirely.
What's the bottom line: Weapons for Ukraine or no weapons for Ukraine?
 
That guy he'd known for decades? Promoted by the guy the west said was 'stable', but really a drunken neoliberal? Why were all the same leaders photographed not only shaking hands with this madman, but also meeting him at leisure activities? Realpolitik? Don't make me laugh.

Be careful with your razor, it's not a toy.
Let me see... You are also an anti-vaxxer and a QANONer?
 
What's the bottom line: Weapons for Ukraine or no weapons for Ukraine?
That is not the 'bottom line' for us in this discussion. If Ukraine needs weapons they would get them from anywhere (and already have done). The bottom line is: 'who is trying to benefit and in what way'. The naive view is that it's people 'arming for victory'. Anyone who has paid attention to history since 1900 should know that isn't what goes on.
 
That is not the 'bottom line' for us in this discussion. If Ukraine needs weapons they would get them from anywhere (and already have done). The bottom line is: 'who is trying to benefit and in what way'. The naive view is that it's people 'arming for victory'. Anyone who has paid attention to history since 1900 should know that isn't what goes on.
Don't evade the answer. Should we give them the weapons? Without them Ukraine will loose and there will be "peace" (your definition).
 


advertisement


Back
Top