Ukraine

I am saying that they exist but we don’t have to agree with them regardless of whether they are right or left, right or wrong etc.

Saying they exist isn’t the same thing as saying they are valid.

Do you think Nazis have a valid viewpoint?

What do you believe, Chewkw? Is Ukraine a real country or not?

Once nuclear war starts ALL will regret.

Hang on a minute?!

Are the pacifists not granted some kind of immunity?

I agree I’m not sure what Chewkw’s position, and sometimes it seems like he believes in Putins position a bit more than we’d like, BUT this thread would be poorer without his contributions. Admittedly it sometimes gets a bit circular but then we don’t have to respond.

Same goes for Dazh, although I have more sympathy for his positions than Chewie’s!

Once nuclear war starts ALL will regret. We are not there yet but we are slowly heading in that direction if not careful.

We’re not going to end up in a nuclear war. Even if Putin’s stupid enough to order a launch, which he won’t, which nuclear armed country is he going to throw it at, who’d to be stupid enough to retaliate to such obvious provocation.

Seems the Russians are pulling back their troops from the Kiev area, really hope it’s not clearing the way to drop some really horrible stuff.

Saying they exist isn’t the same thing as saying they are valid.
Do you think Nazis have a valid viewpoint?

You have to ask them but my assumption is most will see a valid point as they wish to see it themselves. However, I disagree with all on the polar opposite.

What do you believe, Chewkw? Is Ukraine a real country or not?

Ukraine is a real country.
But their nuclear power neighbour is vague on this or has decided they are not.
Sovereign does not come into play when your next door nuclear armed neighbour thinks you are trying to call the “cavalry” to threaten them.

Hang on a minute?!
Are the pacifists not granted some kind of immunity?

We all get vaporised, pacifists or not.

I agree I’m not sure what Chewkw’s position, and sometimes it seems like he believes in Putins position a bit more than we’d like, BUT this thread would be poorer without his contributions.

My position is simple. If NATO/EU keeps pushing east then conflict is inevitable. Smaller nations might just follow suit (join NATO/EU for various reasons) but this time it is nuclear Russia. This is no longer a proxy war fought between NATO/EU and Russia but is now at Russia’s doorstep. Push further and we all get vaporised. US might not be in harms way but EU certainly is.

Seems the Russians are pulling back their troops from the Kiev area

Because they’re getting the shit beaten out of them, and they need to re-group.

My position is simple. If NATO/EU keeps pushing east then conflict is inevitable.

Nato and EU are very different things.
Nato isnt pushing anywhere. Some countries applied to join because they were concerned about the neighbour with a history of “pushing” places.
Current events indicates they were right to be concerned.

If NATO/EU keeps pushing east then conflict is inevitable

Bring it on, the Russians are currently having their arse handed to them militarily by Ukraine, a country that just 6 years ago didn’t really have a military to speak of. I think most European countries are busy redefining their own doctrines in the light of the fact that Russia has been very much revealed, now that the tide’s gone out, to be swimming naked.

Thank you Chewkw, I appreciate your response but please understand that until now our forum interactions have been hugely aggravating for me. I have seen you parrot some quite offensive far-right memes and assertions that you yourself have presented as fact, without any critical analysis. I have personal reasons why I find this quite offensive and until your forum behaviour changes in this respect I will choose to avoid interacting with you directly.

FWIW, I have read and agreed with some of the points you’ve made in this thread but I do hope that you learn to critically appraise some of the language that you post/repeat, as I strongly suspect that you do this intentionally in order to provoke a response, rather than to make a valid point.

Posting on a British forum advocating that Ukraine should roll over and submit a la Czechoslovakia is an absolute no-no though, I’m sure that you would understand why.

But their nuclear power neighbour is vague on this or has decided they are not.

Early on, wasn’t the Kremlin showing a map of what Ukraine was nearly 200 years back, surrounded by territories described as being gifted by russia in the intervening centuries? I don’t think they’ve been vague at all. And Putin has not been particularly vague about the break up of the USSR, has he?

We all get vaporised, pacifists or not.

Pfft! In that case, pacifism sounds like a rubbish idea. Surely you’d be miles better off being Mad Vlad McMad?

Push further and we all get vaporised.

Push further where? Your occasional reminder that there have always been NATO countries bordering Russia from the day it was created. That the USA & UK helped Ukraine dismantle its nuclear capability, and send the warheads to Russia. There is no pushing against Russia. Countries want to join NATO, or work with NATO countries, because of Russia pushing into their territory. Countries want to join the EU because of the economic and social advantages (Russia hasn’t been offering them the same, despite the hope of the 1990s that soon they might). What you are saying is don’t resist Russia. Don’t seek close trading or cultural links between countries. Don’t enable free elections. Don’t let countries defend themselves from Russia… because… they have nuclear capabilities.

Ukraine gave up its nuclear capabilities in return for reassurances about not being invaded by anyone, and a whole heap of cash from the USA as a bribe to become “neutral” on the nuclear worldstage. All other nuclear states are looking on now with the knowledge that the disarmament programme has more than stalled, it is going backwards fast. All thanks to one man.

Pfft! In that case, pacifism sounds like a rubbish idea. Surely you’d be miles better off being Mad Vlad McMad?

Mad Vlad LOL! Vlad the Impaler is another Vlad.
I don’t think I am a pacifist but certainly not one that think the current situation is easy to comprehend considering the involvement of powerful nuclear nations. This is the first time Russia/Putin felt threaten. i.e. the buck stop at red line Ukraine. Also interesting to see that Russia/China/US/EU/NATO are actively courting nations in SE Asia. Although many SE Asian nations want to remain neutral they are caught in a difficult position of having to choose side. Most non-politicians actually see NATO/US as the aggressor which poses the question of how the future will look like if the world is divided into two.

Do you think Nazis have a valid viewpoint?

You have to ask them but my assumption is most will see a valid point as they wish to see it themselves. However, I disagree with all on the polar opposite.

The question was whether you believe Nazis have a valid viewpoint. Why would I ask Nazis what you believe about them? You know what you believe, just answer “yes” or “no”. It’s a very simple question.

If NATO/EU keeps pushing east then conflict is inevitable

They haven’t pushed east. Russia has pushed neighboring countries and they have turned to NATO for security. The only country doing any pushing here is Russia, they invaded Ukraine and have murdered thousands of innocent Ukrainians. This is not NATO’s doing. It’s Russia’s.

Posting on a British forum advocating that Ukraine should roll over and submit a la Czechoslovakia is an absolute no-no though, I’m sure that you would understand why.

No I don’t. Unless you’re claiming that because this is a ‘british’ forum that people should be barred from disagreeing with whatever you think is the ‘british’ position. That’s just ludicrous, and is a good example of what I keep objecting to.

War is complex, tragic and ultimately indefensible. All wars are indefensible. If we take sides then we’re simply condoning, prolonging and encouraging them. The only side we should be taking is that of stopping it as soon as possible by whatever peaceful means are necessary.

The only side we should be taking is that of stopping it as soon as possible by whatever peaceful means are necessary.

Putin has no interest in stopping this war. It will not end by peaceful means. It will end when one side is militarily defeated. That’s the reality. The best way of ending it quickly is to provide Ukraine with the weapons they need to defeat Russia.

Most non-politicians actually see NATO/US as the aggressor

Bollox.

The only side we should be taking is that of stopping it as soon as possible by whatever peaceful means are necessary.

How do you propose doing that then? Should I get your guitar…..

😀

The question was whether you believe Nazis have a valid viewpoint. Why would I ask Nazis what you believe about them? You know what you believe, just answer “yes” or “no”. It’s a very simple question.

I disagree with the Nazi same as I disagree with CCP. Both are hell bent on seeing their fantasy through and perhaps something not quite right in their minds. Having said that I think I understand their perspectives (understand does not mean I agree) i.e. one race (Nazi) to rule them all and many races (CCP – actually party) to rule them all. At the end of the day both tend to say “do as I say/think or else …”. Both will only accept their own ideological definition and both love to use force directly or indirectly. Valid point refers to the way they manage the situation. i.e. in the case of Nazi they see themselves as the superior apex to rule over others, just like their counterpart CCP who see themselves ruling over others. Their emphasis is mainly, one race(s), one thinking, unity and order (machine like). But we all know that both are living in the dreamland. In their views chaos (individual thinking etc) is to be erased or discouraged.

Most non-politicians actually see NATO/US Russia as the aggressor

FTFY. It’s actually a very simple thing. Russia invaded another country and is deliberately and systematically targeting civilians to try and force a capitulation. Most people can see very clearly that Russia is the aggressor in this.

I disagree with the Nazi same as I disagree with CCP

Then you don’t think all viewpoints are valid. Pretty simple really.

No I don’t. Unless you’re claiming that because this is a ‘british’ forum that people should be barred from disagreeing with whatever you think is the ‘british’ position.

I wasn’t replying to you, but FWIW I am trying to find the closest analogy to asking Ukraine to roll over and allow itself to become a Russian puppet state. Perhaps I handled that clumsily, but as a Brit who has worked with and socialised with Czechs and Slovaks, “our” sellout in 1938 still leaves a bitter taste for many. I dob’t believe that we gain anything from appeasing a dictator.

Bollox.

I agree with Gobuchul – Putin’s claim that “NATO is the aggressor” is not widely shared as most people would agree that’s a flimsy pretext for invasion. Putin is the most dangerous politician we’ve seen in Europe since 1945 and his regime should be treated as such.

Then you don’t think all viewpoints are valid. Pretty simple really.

Actually, if view from realist perspective they all exist and valid on their own account (they consider themselves valid) and they will fight over to dominate.
If you have a liberal perspective then one of the core point is individual rights, which should also include rights of those that oppose liberalism is it not? But somehow liberalism has opposed certain ideologies which sounds contradictory.

Maybe I am not frequenting the ‘right’ news sites, but Putin has been very quiet for the last few days compared to previously? Whereas he was making statements and speeches, now it all seems to be representatives that are presenting opinions and on news channels

If you have a liberal perspective then one of the core point is individual rights, which should also include rights of those that oppose liberalism is it not?

Nope. You are confusing tolerance with relativism. Not the same thing. Being tolerant of people who are different does not mean accepting that totalitarian viewpoints have any validity.

There’s also the issue of empirical facts. Being tolerant doesn’t require accepting lies as truths. It’s an empirical fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and has murdered thousands of innocents. It’s an untruth to say that NATO engaged in aggression against Russia. That just has not happened, no matter how much Russian propaganda repeats the untruth.

There’s also the issue of empirical facts. Being tolerant doesn’t require accepting lies as truths. It’s an empirical fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and has murdered thousands of innocents. It’s an untruth to say that NATO engaged in aggression against Russia. That just has not happened, no matter how much Russian propaganda repeats the untruth.

What thols2 said.

It’s an empirical fact that Russia invaded Ukraine and has murdered thousands of innocents. It’s an untruth to say that NATO engaged in aggression against Russia. That just has not happened, no matter how much Russian propaganda repeats the untruth.

More complex than that as the situation is unprecedented where nuclear weapons are used as part of the leverage.

If Russia does not have nukes they would have long gone or overrun. It looks like having nukes play a big part in charting the course of negotiation/engagement etc.

Therefore, having nukes is the leverage when powerful nations face off.

the situation is unprecedented where nuclear weapons are used

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and should be used as a last resort

Unlike in Chewy’s posts, where he uses them indiscriminately, to make every point, every post.

Let it go. If that is the breadth of your argument you need to find more context than just RT and Fox news

If Russia does not have nukes they would have long gone or overrun. It looks like having nukes play a big part in charting the course of negotiation/engagement etc.

Nonsense.

If Russia does not have nukes they would have long gone or overrun.

In what world is that? There was that short period when the yanks had nukes and no one else did that some argued for nuking the USSR before they could catch up but as you may have noticed it was a minority view and didnt get support.
If you are a small relatively weak nation then having nuclear weapons is useful for deterring an attack (its unlikely Ukraine would have been invaded if they had kept theirs and if Saddam really did have WMD he would have probabably been left alone) but Russia doesnt fall into that category. Any invasion would be costly in terms of lives and equipment so why try it?

FTFY. It’s actually a very simple thing. Russia invaded another country and is deliberately and systematically targeting civilians to try and force a capitulation. Most people can see very clearly that Russia is the aggressor in this.

Yeah I think we all know this. We’ve moved on to discussing why it might’ve happened, I think, and discussing the relative perspectives that people may have.

Therefore we should offer nukes back to Ukraine to ensure the peace talks proceed quickly?

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and should be used as a last resort

Yes, it is a deterrent but it is also being used as leverage for Russia/Putin. You really cannot take the nuke equation out of this context. The reality is how do you deal with a powerful nation arm with nukes?

NATO tried to negotiate for a no fly zone but that is not even possible as Russia/Putin rejected that. Why NATO not just simply do it after all Russia/Putin is “weaken”? Does it have something to do with nuclear deterrent?

Therefore we should offer nukes back to Ukraine to ensure the peace talks proceed quickly?

Too late and the situation will escalate if offer of nukes to Ukraine now.

Nonsense

I concur, Russia does have a pretty long history of survival prior to nuclear weapons.

It’s worth noting that for four years from 1945 to 1949 the Soviet Union managed to continue existing without atomic weapons.

It looks like the negotiation is roughly as predicted …

“Russia said it would “drastically reduce combat operations” around the capital, Kyiv, and the northern city Chernihiv
Ukraine’s team said they would accept a “neutral” status for the country – which would mean not joining alliances like Nato – in return for security guarantees”

BBC news