Utopia Talk - Politics - Ukraine: UK, France & Germany plan ...

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Apr 20 08:51:49 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Ukraine: UK, France & Germany plan ...

murder
Member Thu Mar 02 16:01:51
To betray Ukraine again.

=============================

Here’s what arming Ukraine could look like in the future

France, Germany, and the UK proposed a new defense plan — that might be a subtle bid for peace negotiations.

While NATO issued a statement on Friday presenting a united front, echoing President Biden’s talk of unwavering support for Ukraine, officials in Germany, France, and the UK reportedly proposed a limited security pact with the goal of fostering peace negotiations. The proposed pact between Ukraine and NATO would provide the nation with sufficient firepower to fend off Russian aggression — while also tacitly encouraging talks between Russia and Ukraine — raising questions about the future of the conflict.

The proposal contrasts somewhat with US President Joe Biden’s commitment to unwavering support for Ukraine. In a speech in Warsaw on Wednesday, Biden promised that “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia — never.” His surprise trip to Ukraine and Poland marked the one-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion.

NATO’s charter requires unanimous consensus to adopt any new proposal, so the tripartite plan is far from a done deal. And there’s been somewhat more urgency to offer major support from nations in Eastern Europe, geographically closer to Russia and potentially more at risk themselves of a Russian invasion should Ukraine be unable to deliver a crushing defeat and take back all its territory.

Whether the defense pact is directly linked to efforts to negotiate a peace deal is a looming question, Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Vox in an interview. But it’s a critical question, given Russia’s insistence on prosecuting this war despite significant casualties on both sides.

What would the pact include, and what’s the purpose of it?

France and Germany in particular have been somewhat reluctant to throw their full weight behind the effort to support Ukraine. Whether that’s French President Emmanuel Macron’s willingness to entertain Russia’s security concerns or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s indecision regarding sending German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, the two nations have provided a periodically frustrating counterweight to NATO efforts to support Ukraine. That’s in stark contrast to the UK position, which has overall been extremely open to giving Ukraine military support.

“So far the UK had rather a position which was closer to the central and Eastern European states, whereas Germany and France were those who always kept in the back of their minds the possibility of negotiations,” Fix said. “So it’s a little bit surprising to see those three countries put together.”

The plan, initially proposed by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, would give Ukraine access to advanced NATO weaponry, according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal. Sunak has also supported giving Ukraine fighter aircraft in the future.

Increased access to the NATO arsenal would clearly be an advantage for Ukraine, but it would be limited, should the proposal go through. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Germany-France-UK proposal would not offer Article Five protection to Ukraine. That principle of the NATO charter holds that the other members of the treaty are bound to come to the aid of a member nation under attack, should the nation make that request. Nor would it be a promise to station NATO troops in Ukraine; a particular bogeyman for Russia has been the threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine.

The Article Five protection has been of particular concern for other NATO members; should Ukraine become part of the alliance and come under attack from Russia, member states would have to come to its defense, potentially risking a massive, calamitous ground war — or worse, nuclear conflict.

The pact looks like somewhat of a continuation of the current arrangement, that is, Western military support short of NATO membership. But Ukraine has already applied to be a NATO member and has stated its intention to work toward membership throughout the war. One of Russia’s initial terms for negotiation, after its invasion one year ago, was that Ukraine remain neutral and commit to never joining NATO; it’s not clear whether the proposed pact would prevent Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, though Fix said Ukraine would certainly work to ensure that was not the case. Vox reached out to a NATO spokesperson for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

The backdrop of the proposed plan is, according to French, German, and UK officials interviewed by the WSJ, to promise Ukraine protection and access to weapons in the hopes that such security guarantees would incentivize Ukraine to pursue peace negotiations with Russia.

As Vox’s Jen Kirby wrote Friday, pressure for negotiations looks to be on the horizon:

"Right now, the West seems willing to give Ukraine what it needs, to let Kyiv capitalize on this particular moment. But Ukraine is unlikely to recapture all of the territory within its internationally recognized borders, and this war could start to turn into a stalemate. If that happens, it may give way to a new kind of Western solidarity: one that supports Ukraine but also begins to quietly pressure them to negotiate."

But it’s not clear to what extent the two objectives — arming Ukraine and pursuing peace negotiations with Russia — are conditionally linked, Fix said. “It might be that these two issues are discussed at the same time, but I would find it difficult if there was a linkage, and I find it difficult to believe that the linkage would be Ukraine only gets additional defense and security support if it agrees to negotiations.” Rather, it may be that the defense pact is a means to test the waters and determine the appetite for negotiations.

Ukraine, though, is less inclined than it was a year ago to participate in any negotiations. As Anchal Vohra wrote in Foreign Policy Wednesday, Zelenskyy was once willing to sacrifice Crimea to achieve an end to the fighting; now, the Ukrainian military is reportedly making plans to take the area, which has been under Russian control since 2014, back.

Are negotiations even possible at this point?

But given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to prosecuting this war — no matter how many losses Russia sustains both territorially and in terms of troop casualties — it’s worth asking whether it even makes sense to pursue negotiations with Putin.

Russia doesn’t have a good track record of following through with its obligations under international agreements; for example, the country has violated 2015’s Minsk II agreement, which calls for an end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine, a removal of Russian troops there, and restoration of the area to Ukrainian control. Moscow obliterated that agreement, claiming that since there were no Russian troops involved in the fighting, it wasn’t party to the conflict.

Putin has painted the West and NATO as the aggressors in this conflict and an existential threat to Russia. “They have one goal: to disband the former Soviet Union and its fundamental part — the Russian Federation,” Putin said in an interview for state TV station Rossiya 1 that aired Sunday, according to Reuters. Putin also claimed in the interview that the West planned to carve up Russia and take control of its natural resources, as well as destroy the Russian people.

“Doubling down isn’t merely the choice that they made, but it’s also, increasingly, the only choice they’ve left themselves,” Gavin Wilde, a Russia expert and senior fellow in the technology and international affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Kirby last week. “It’s hard for me to discern whether that’s self-sabotage or an effort to get the West to understand — or the US in particular — how existential they’ve chosen to make this conflict, and all the escalatory implications that that entails.”

It also potentially opens the door for Russia to use nuclear weapons in accordance with its doctrine, which allows such deployment in the case of an existential threat, whether from nuclear weapons, conventional forces, or some other weapon of mass destruction, which threatens the existence of the Russian state.

To that end, Putin is again raising the stakes for nuclear escalation, both by suspending the New START treaty and by claiming to have deployed new ground-based strategic nuclear weapons systems. The New START treaty was the only remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US; its suspension raises the possibility that Russia could resume nuclear tests and increase its already massive nuclear arsenal — without checks from the US.

Given the dire picture Putin is painting for the Russian people, it’s not clear Russia would be interested in coming to the negotiating table, even if NATO were to adopt the proposed security pact.

“For Putin, his main possibility to stay in power is to continue this war, and to make it a forever war, because he might perceive it as being so closely linked to his own survival,” Fix said. “So even testing out the possibility of negotiations with Ukraine does not mean it will actually lead to something on the Russian side.”

http://www...-nato-russia-france-germany-uk

Seb
Member Thu Mar 02 16:11:24
Looks less a betrayal more a plan for what happens if Ukraine fails to win decisively this year.

Europe needs to plan for what happens if the
Habebe's of this world gain power in the US next year - that are outright sympathetic to Russia.

This looks like plan B, not plan A.

Plan A is Ukraine wins.

murder
Member Thu Mar 02 16:54:16

It's as much of a plan as the Budapest Memorandum was. There is no plan.

"We'll all sign this paper that says that in the future Ukraine will be subject to the exact same conditions which it is subject to today."

Promises of advanced weapons ... in the future ... which will never be delivered for the exact same reasons that they aren't delivered today. Fear of antagonizing Russia. The only thing Ukraine would get is truncated, screwed, and a whole new round of the usual "provocation", "escalation", bullshit reasons for doing the absolute minimum to help Ukraine.

Just like in 1994 and in 2014, Ukraine would be left without a commitment guaranteeing it's security and without the weapons to guarantee it's own security.

murder
Member Thu Mar 02 16:57:30

"Europe needs to plan for what happens if the
Habebe's of this world gain power in the US next year - that are outright sympathetic to Russia."

This does nothing to help Ukraine in that circumstance.

=============================
Rishi Sunak will call on world leaders to ensure a “lasting peace” for Ukraine with the establishment of a new Nato charter to help the country defend itself “again and again” in the face of any future declarations of war by Russia.

http://www...ine-munich-security-conference
=============================

I can't imagine a more comforting statement if I was Ukraine.

Seb
Member Thu Mar 02 17:03:27
Murder:

So we are describing a situation where the main European security powers are saying "we will maintain commitment to Ukrainian defence in a manner equivalent to how it stands now even in the event of peace".

You say that things won't be delivered for fear of provoking Russia, yet one on your countries is giving Ukraine tanks, cruise missiles and probably would be giving jets if it had any it could afford to part with.

Your cynicism here isn't justified.

murder
Member Thu Mar 02 17:24:20

"So we are describing a situation where the main European security powers are saying "we will maintain commitment to Ukrainian defence in a manner equivalent to how it stands now even in the event of peace"."

WTF does this even mean? That is word salad. European powers have always been willing to sell arms to customers to whatever extent they feel serves their interest. The situation they are describing is the situation that has always existed.

"You say that things won't be delivered for fear of provoking Russia, yet one on your countries is giving Ukraine tanks, cruise missiles and probably would be giving jets if it had any it could afford to part with."

What fucking cruise missiles? So far all aid to Ukraine has been limited to short range weapons to ensure that Russia doesn't have to pay any price for its aggression. Western powers have given Ukraine two options ... capitulation or keep fighting and get ground to dust.

And the reward for doing either is the guarantee that they'll have to do it again and again.

Habebe
Member Thu Mar 02 17:25:25
Not wanting to spend 100s of billions a year and leave our military depleted for some useless field on the otherside of the planet 95% of Americans will nevwr even visit means you ate sympathetic to their enemy?

I love how people from nations who gave up on a military are the biggest proponents of more forever wars.

Paramount
Member Thu Mar 02 18:00:14
” France and Germany in particular have been somewhat reluctant to throw their full weight behind the effort to support Ukraine.”

No one in Europe wants a war with Russia. The US should get the fuck out of Europe. It wasn’t sufficient for them (and the UK) to start a war and destroy the Middle East. Millions dead and millions of refugees was the consequence. But now they are willing to do it again in Europe. All because of prestige.

” it’s not clear Russia would be interested in coming to the negotiating table, even if NATO were to adopt the proposed security pact.”

Why would they? Russia has been lied to and deceived by the US/Nato. Besides, prior to the war broke out, Russia wanted to negotiate a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. They were seeking a peaceful solution. But it wasn’t possible because the US and the puppet regime in Ukraine wasn’t interested. Russia had no one to negotiate with. Hence the Russian decided that they had to intervene in Eastern Ukraine.

”it wAs unpRovOked!!!” — USA, UK, Nato etc

Lol, gtfo.

” For Putin, his main possibility to stay in power is to continue this war, and to make it a forever war,”

Funny. The ”forever war” is what the US is seeking, to maintain their power and hegemony, so that they can continue to crush those who does not bow to the will of the American Empire.

Paramount
Member Thu Mar 02 18:13:54
The US has since from the start lied so much about this conflict that they can’t back down now. The only thing that can save people’s lives and stabilize the world now is if all the warmongerers in Biden’s administration are removed one way or another. I mean, there are even people there in the US that are talking about a war with China also. The US has derailed.

Habebe
Member Thu Mar 02 22:51:33
"The US has since from the start lied so much about this conflict that they can’t back down now."

While this is entirely true, it's also basically true for all parties involved.

My inner Ron Paul streak sees it this way.

Russia invaded some random nation I don't care about at all.Was that wrong? Sure, but is it US business? No. We have no alliance, barely any trade, America should worry about Americans.

Russia has no plans to invade South Carolina.

The Ukraine has leeched our tax dollars while Americans struggle.The Ukraine actively wants to have the US involved in a war, NATO as well.

They launched rockets at an allied nation (Poland) and blamed Russia to try and instigate a greater war between the US/NATO and Russia.

Russia may be the aggressor to the Ukraine, but as an American the Ukraine is the clear aggressor and the party who wants to see my fight a needless war.

That is not me siding with Russia, that is me siding with the USA.

If my neighbor get into an argument and I choose to mind my own business, seeing how it is in MY best self interest to do so, would you say I am siding with either party?

Seb
Member Fri Mar 03 10:14:04
murder:

"The situation they are describing is the situation that has always existed."

We are not talking about sales, and yes, Europe has traditionally provided export versions.

"What fucking cruise missiles?"
UK's discussing giving them stormshadows - trying to figure out how to get them onto soviet era jets.

Rugian
Member Fri Mar 03 11:28:01
Habebe

At some point in the 2010s, the leftists and neocons effectively merged with each other. The neocons agreed to ditch the majority of their social agenda, and the leftists agreed to become imperialist war hawks that fellate forever wars and the security state.

Seb is just the product of that political paradigm shift.

Rugian
Member Fri Mar 03 11:30:45
Basically seb is the British version of this meme:

http://twitter.com/BajsanThePink/status/1328141550078070785

murder
Member Fri Mar 03 20:38:34

"That is not me siding with Russia, that is me siding with the USA."

No that is you siding with Russia and pretending that you want to avoid war that doesn't involve us. But that's clearly bullshit because the Taiwan is even more irrelevant to the US, and you seem obsessed with the possibility of China invading.

"Russia has no plans to invade South Carolina."

Damn shame. I hear there are lots of Nazis there.

Seb
Member Sat Mar 04 03:24:56
Rugian:

Lol.

Anyone who remembers the forums in the 90s would recall I've:

1. Always been for the social democratic pro-market with regulation to achieve public good
2. Always been pro rights for minorities
3. Always been internationalist and pro intervention to address crimes to Humanities.

The US internal squabbles between neocons etc. are very parochial and far from universal. Your perspective is so very limited.

show deleted posts

murder Member	Thu Mar 02 16:01:51 To betray Ukraine again. ============================= Here’s what arming Ukraine could look like in the future France, Germany, and the UK proposed a new defense plan — that might be a subtle bid for peace negotiations. While NATO issued a statement on Friday presenting a united front, echoing President Biden’s talk of unwavering support for Ukraine, officials in Germany, France, and the UK reportedly proposed a limited security pact with the goal of fostering peace negotiations. The proposed pact between Ukraine and NATO would provide the nation with sufficient firepower to fend off Russian aggression — while also tacitly encouraging talks between Russia and Ukraine — raising questions about the future of the conflict. The proposal contrasts somewhat with US President Joe Biden’s commitment to unwavering support for Ukraine. In a speech in Warsaw on Wednesday, Biden promised that “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia — never.” His surprise trip to Ukraine and Poland marked the one-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion. NATO’s charter requires unanimous consensus to adopt any new proposal, so the tripartite plan is far from a done deal. And there’s been somewhat more urgency to offer major support from nations in Eastern Europe, geographically closer to Russia and potentially more at risk themselves of a Russian invasion should Ukraine be unable to deliver a crushing defeat and take back all its territory. Whether the defense pact is directly linked to efforts to negotiate a peace deal is a looming question, Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Vox in an interview. But it’s a critical question, given Russia’s insistence on prosecuting this war despite significant casualties on both sides. What would the pact include, and what’s the purpose of it? France and Germany in particular have been somewhat reluctant to throw their full weight behind the effort to support Ukraine. Whether that’s French President Emmanuel Macron’s willingness to entertain Russia’s security concerns or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s indecision regarding sending German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, the two nations have provided a periodically frustrating counterweight to NATO efforts to support Ukraine. That’s in stark contrast to the UK position, which has overall been extremely open to giving Ukraine military support. “So far the UK had rather a position which was closer to the central and Eastern European states, whereas Germany and France were those who always kept in the back of their minds the possibility of negotiations,” Fix said. “So it’s a little bit surprising to see those three countries put together.” The plan, initially proposed by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, would give Ukraine access to advanced NATO weaponry, according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal. Sunak has also supported giving Ukraine fighter aircraft in the future. Increased access to the NATO arsenal would clearly be an advantage for Ukraine, but it would be limited, should the proposal go through. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Germany-France-UK proposal would not offer Article Five protection to Ukraine. That principle of the NATO charter holds that the other members of the treaty are bound to come to the aid of a member nation under attack, should the nation make that request. Nor would it be a promise to station NATO troops in Ukraine; a particular bogeyman for Russia has been the threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine. The Article Five protection has been of particular concern for other NATO members; should Ukraine become part of the alliance and come under attack from Russia, member states would have to come to its defense, potentially risking a massive, calamitous ground war — or worse, nuclear conflict. The pact looks like somewhat of a continuation of the current arrangement, that is, Western military support short of NATO membership. But Ukraine has already applied to be a NATO member and has stated its intention to work toward membership throughout the war. One of Russia’s initial terms for negotiation, after its invasion one year ago, was that Ukraine remain neutral and commit to never joining NATO; it’s not clear whether the proposed pact would prevent Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, though Fix said Ukraine would certainly work to ensure that was not the case. Vox reached out to a NATO spokesperson for comment but did not receive a response by press time. The backdrop of the proposed plan is, according to French, German, and UK officials interviewed by the WSJ, to promise Ukraine protection and access to weapons in the hopes that such security guarantees would incentivize Ukraine to pursue peace negotiations with Russia. As Vox’s Jen Kirby wrote Friday, pressure for negotiations looks to be on the horizon: "Right now, the West seems willing to give Ukraine what it needs, to let Kyiv capitalize on this particular moment. But Ukraine is unlikely to recapture all of the territory within its internationally recognized borders, and this war could start to turn into a stalemate. If that happens, it may give way to a new kind of Western solidarity: one that supports Ukraine but also begins to quietly pressure them to negotiate." But it’s not clear to what extent the two objectives — arming Ukraine and pursuing peace negotiations with Russia — are conditionally linked, Fix said. “It might be that these two issues are discussed at the same time, but I would find it difficult if there was a linkage, and I find it difficult to believe that the linkage would be Ukraine only gets additional defense and security support if it agrees to negotiations.” Rather, it may be that the defense pact is a means to test the waters and determine the appetite for negotiations. Ukraine, though, is less inclined than it was a year ago to participate in any negotiations. As Anchal Vohra wrote in Foreign Policy Wednesday, Zelenskyy was once willing to sacrifice Crimea to achieve an end to the fighting; now, the Ukrainian military is reportedly making plans to take the area, which has been under Russian control since 2014, back. Are negotiations even possible at this point? But given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to prosecuting this war — no matter how many losses Russia sustains both territorially and in terms of troop casualties — it’s worth asking whether it even makes sense to pursue negotiations with Putin. Russia doesn’t have a good track record of following through with its obligations under international agreements; for example, the country has violated 2015’s Minsk II agreement, which calls for an end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine, a removal of Russian troops there, and restoration of the area to Ukrainian control. Moscow obliterated that agreement, claiming that since there were no Russian troops involved in the fighting, it wasn’t party to the conflict. Putin has painted the West and NATO as the aggressors in this conflict and an existential threat to Russia. “They have one goal: to disband the former Soviet Union and its fundamental part — the Russian Federation,” Putin said in an interview for state TV station Rossiya 1 that aired Sunday, according to Reuters. Putin also claimed in the interview that the West planned to carve up Russia and take control of its natural resources, as well as destroy the Russian people. “Doubling down isn’t merely the choice that they made, but it’s also, increasingly, the only choice they’ve left themselves,” Gavin Wilde, a Russia expert and senior fellow in the technology and international affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Kirby last week. “It’s hard for me to discern whether that’s self-sabotage or an effort to get the West to understand — or the US in particular — how existential they’ve chosen to make this conflict, and all the escalatory implications that that entails.” It also potentially opens the door for Russia to use nuclear weapons in accordance with its doctrine, which allows such deployment in the case of an existential threat, whether from nuclear weapons, conventional forces, or some other weapon of mass destruction, which threatens the existence of the Russian state. To that end, Putin is again raising the stakes for nuclear escalation, both by suspending the New START treaty and by claiming to have deployed new ground-based strategic nuclear weapons systems. The New START treaty was the only remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US; its suspension raises the possibility that Russia could resume nuclear tests and increase its already massive nuclear arsenal — without checks from the US. Given the dire picture Putin is painting for the Russian people, it’s not clear Russia would be interested in coming to the negotiating table, even if NATO were to adopt the proposed security pact. “For Putin, his main possibility to stay in power is to continue this war, and to make it a forever war, because he might perceive it as being so closely linked to his own survival,” Fix said. “So even testing out the possibility of negotiations with Ukraine does not mean it will actually lead to something on the Russian side.” http://www...-nato-russia-france-germany-uk
Seb Member	Thu Mar 02 16:11:24 Looks less a betrayal more a plan for what happens if Ukraine fails to win decisively this year. Europe needs to plan for what happens if the Habebe's of this world gain power in the US next year - that are outright sympathetic to Russia. This looks like plan B, not plan A. Plan A is Ukraine wins.
murder Member	Thu Mar 02 16:54:16 It's as much of a plan as the Budapest Memorandum was. There is no plan. "We'll all sign this paper that says that in the future Ukraine will be subject to the exact same conditions which it is subject to today." Promises of advanced weapons ... in the future ... which will never be delivered for the exact same reasons that they aren't delivered today. Fear of antagonizing Russia. The only thing Ukraine would get is truncated, screwed, and a whole new round of the usual "provocation", "escalation", bullshit reasons for doing the absolute minimum to help Ukraine. Just like in 1994 and in 2014, Ukraine would be left without a commitment guaranteeing it's security and without the weapons to guarantee it's own security.
murder Member	Thu Mar 02 16:57:30 "Europe needs to plan for what happens if the Habebe's of this world gain power in the US next year - that are outright sympathetic to Russia." This does nothing to help Ukraine in that circumstance. ============================= Rishi Sunak will call on world leaders to ensure a “lasting peace” for Ukraine with the establishment of a new Nato charter to help the country defend itself “again and again” in the face of any future declarations of war by Russia. http://www...ine-munich-security-conference ============================= I can't imagine a more comforting statement if I was Ukraine.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 02 17:03:27 Murder: So we are describing a situation where the main European security powers are saying "we will maintain commitment to Ukrainian defence in a manner equivalent to how it stands now even in the event of peace". You say that things won't be delivered for fear of provoking Russia, yet one on your countries is giving Ukraine tanks, cruise missiles and probably would be giving jets if it had any it could afford to part with. Your cynicism here isn't justified.
murder Member	Thu Mar 02 17:24:20 "So we are describing a situation where the main European security powers are saying "we will maintain commitment to Ukrainian defence in a manner equivalent to how it stands now even in the event of peace"." WTF does this even mean? That is word salad. European powers have always been willing to sell arms to customers to whatever extent they feel serves their interest. The situation they are describing is the situation that has always existed. "You say that things won't be delivered for fear of provoking Russia, yet one on your countries is giving Ukraine tanks, cruise missiles and probably would be giving jets if it had any it could afford to part with." What fucking cruise missiles? So far all aid to Ukraine has been limited to short range weapons to ensure that Russia doesn't have to pay any price for its aggression. Western powers have given Ukraine two options ... capitulation or keep fighting and get ground to dust. And the reward for doing either is the guarantee that they'll have to do it again and again.
Habebe Member	Thu Mar 02 17:25:25 Not wanting to spend 100s of billions a year and leave our military depleted for some useless field on the otherside of the planet 95% of Americans will nevwr even visit means you ate sympathetic to their enemy? I love how people from nations who gave up on a military are the biggest proponents of more forever wars.
Paramount Member	Thu Mar 02 18:00:14 ” France and Germany in particular have been somewhat reluctant to throw their full weight behind the effort to support Ukraine.” No one in Europe wants a war with Russia. The US should get the fuck out of Europe. It wasn’t sufficient for them (and the UK) to start a war and destroy the Middle East. Millions dead and millions of refugees was the consequence. But now they are willing to do it again in Europe. All because of prestige. ” it’s not clear Russia would be interested in coming to the negotiating table, even if NATO were to adopt the proposed security pact.” Why would they? Russia has been lied to and deceived by the US/Nato. Besides, prior to the war broke out, Russia wanted to negotiate a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. They were seeking a peaceful solution. But it wasn’t possible because the US and the puppet regime in Ukraine wasn’t interested. Russia had no one to negotiate with. Hence the Russian decided that they had to intervene in Eastern Ukraine. ”it wAs unpRovOked!!!” — USA, UK, Nato etc Lol, gtfo. ” For Putin, his main possibility to stay in power is to continue this war, and to make it a forever war,” Funny. The ”forever war” is what the US is seeking, to maintain their power and hegemony, so that they can continue to crush those who does not bow to the will of the American Empire.
Paramount Member	Thu Mar 02 18:13:54 The US has since from the start lied so much about this conflict that they can’t back down now. The only thing that can save people’s lives and stabilize the world now is if all the warmongerers in Biden’s administration are removed one way or another. I mean, there are even people there in the US that are talking about a war with China also. The US has derailed.
Habebe Member	Thu Mar 02 22:51:33 "The US has since from the start lied so much about this conflict that they can’t back down now." While this is entirely true, it's also basically true for all parties involved. My inner Ron Paul streak sees it this way. Russia invaded some random nation I don't care about at all.Was that wrong? Sure, but is it US business? No. We have no alliance, barely any trade, America should worry about Americans. Russia has no plans to invade South Carolina. The Ukraine has leeched our tax dollars while Americans struggle.The Ukraine actively wants to have the US involved in a war, NATO as well. They launched rockets at an allied nation (Poland) and blamed Russia to try and instigate a greater war between the US/NATO and Russia. Russia may be the aggressor to the Ukraine, but as an American the Ukraine is the clear aggressor and the party who wants to see my fight a needless war. That is not me siding with Russia, that is me siding with the USA. If my neighbor get into an argument and I choose to mind my own business, seeing how it is in MY best self interest to do so, would you say I am siding with either party?
Seb Member	Fri Mar 03 10:14:04 murder: "The situation they are describing is the situation that has always existed." We are not talking about sales, and yes, Europe has traditionally provided export versions. "What fucking cruise missiles?" UK's discussing giving them stormshadows - trying to figure out how to get them onto soviet era jets.
Rugian Member	Fri Mar 03 11:28:01 Habebe At some point in the 2010s, the leftists and neocons effectively merged with each other. The neocons agreed to ditch the majority of their social agenda, and the leftists agreed to become imperialist war hawks that fellate forever wars and the security state. Seb is just the product of that political paradigm shift.
Rugian Member	Fri Mar 03 11:30:45 Basically seb is the British version of this meme: http://twitter.com/BajsanThePink/status/1328141550078070785
murder Member	Fri Mar 03 20:38:34 "That is not me siding with Russia, that is me siding with the USA." No that is you siding with Russia and pretending that you want to avoid war that doesn't involve us. But that's clearly bullshit because the Taiwan is even more irrelevant to the US, and you seem obsessed with the possibility of China invading. "Russia has no plans to invade South Carolina." Damn shame. I hear there are lots of Nazis there.
Seb Member	Sat Mar 04 03:24:56 Rugian: Lol. Anyone who remembers the forums in the 90s would recall I've: 1. Always been for the social democratic pro-market with regulation to achieve public good 2. Always been pro rights for minorities 3. Always been internationalist and pro intervention to address crimes to Humanities. The US internal squabbles between neocons etc. are very parochial and far from universal. Your perspective is so very limited.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: