| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23027 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:19 terrorist wrote: Russia can withdraw, the wider West could cut Ukraine off and leave it to be subsumed, which is peace of a kind, or we can observe a prolonged slugfest which will either see Russia achieve its aims or be rebuffed. The ball is very much in one party’s court on that one | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21188 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:03 terrorist wrote: I was born in a city called "Emmen" which was claimed at the time by a 'queen' named Beatrix van Oranje. She signs the documents that are created by some pretend-democracy in a city called The Hague. I live in Coevorden now, where most of my extended family comes from. I am not Russian. I respect every living being. Including Russians. Most people here seemingly think of them as "Orks"[/QUOTE]the whole hippie world peace thing really doesnt work after you snap and wish everyone would just die in nuclear fire for disagreeing with your fantasy world view | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7895 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:19 terrorist wrote: The rest of Europe should get their thumbs out of their asses and supply Ukraine with the weapons they need to defend themselves. With the recent escalations from Russia in using men from North Korea, I wouldn't even be opposed to sending men directly. Defending people in need is the only morally correct choice to make, and Ukraine is in need. Only Putin can decide to end this war, and he could do that any time he wants. If we're going for realistic, aka. what is most likely to happen, I think the war is going to end naturally in 2025. Due to Trump pulling funds, and Russia nearing economic collapse, they'll likely find a solution where Ukraine is forced to give up parts of its land in favour of security from an alliance with NATO | ||
|
terrorist
14 Posts
| ||
|
terrorist
14 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway7895 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:48 terrorist wrote: "There is no easy solution" is a completely legit opinion to have you know. If there was a solution that would please all sides, war would be pointless in the first place. The reason they fight is exactly because neither side is willing to back down. But that doesn't make thia conflict black and white in terms of ethics. There is one man who could end all the suffering right now m, and he sits in Moscow. Ukraine rolling over would not stop the suffering, quite the opposite. Thus, they fight. For their lives and the lives of their families. Putin fights for narcissism. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7895 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:50 terrorist wrote: Ukraine doesn't need to win by taking ground. They need to hold off long enough for Russia to run out of men, equipment, and economy. Giving Ukraine weapons will do that. Yes, they are low on manpower, but, say, 3 million artillery shells would help alleviate that by quite a bit | ||
|
terrorist
14 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41574 Posts
On November 24 2024 08:59 terrorist wrote: It's not a charade, I am genuinely as stupid as I appear to be. It seems you've talked me around to your point of view. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41574 Posts
On November 24 2024 08:58 Luolis wrote: I think its pretty obvious its the same guy who got banned for the insane nuclear bomb post. This is the correct take. If you know a mod is going to come in and nuke all his posts then why bother engaging. | ||
|
Razyda
498 Posts
On November 24 2024 09:38 Excludos wrote: The rest of Europe should get their thumbs out of their asses and supply Ukraine with the weapons they need to defend themselves. With the recent escalations from Russia in using men from North Korea, I wouldn't even be opposed to sending men directly. Defending people in need is the only morally correct choice to make, and Ukraine is in need. Only Putin can decide to end this war, and he could do that any time he wants. If we're going for realistic, aka. what is most likely to happen, I think the war is going to end naturally in 2025. Due to Trump pulling funds, and Russia nearing economic collapse, they'll likely find a solution where Ukraine is forced to give up parts of its land in favour of security from an alliance with NATO Bolded - I partially agree except for NATO part (may be wrong here obviously). Considering that entire war narrative is about preventing Ukraine from joining NATO I dont see how Putin can agree to that, from domestic politics point of view. I would see Russia keeping some of the territory gained and ceding some back to Ukraine, rest is going to be money, resources, tariffs and politics. To be honest I am not sure if US really want Ukraine to join NATO, I would say that Ukraine is more useful to US as sort of "buffer zone". | ||
|
KwarK
United States41574 Posts
Russia will not permit neutral states to exist if it has the power to conquer them. For Russia only the mighty have the privilege of neutrality. The weak exist at the mercy of the strong and must shelter beneath them, accepting their inferiority and welcoming the domination of their more powerful neighbours. That’s simply the 19th Century imperialist worldview, you’re either an empire in your own right or you’re dominated by an empire. No other state can exist because it would naturally be gobbled up by the nearest empire. Sure there are countries like Ireland that profess neutrality but Russia will never understand why Britain lacks the strength of will to simply reconquer their errant vassal. Had Ukraine picked a side when the Baltic states did there would be no war today. That’s why the historically neutral states near Russia rushed to pick a side. Russia doesn’t recognize neutral buffer states, only colonies that are still unclaimed. Any neutral zone is begging for another war in a decade. | ||
|
Razyda
498 Posts
On November 24 2024 11:16 KwarK wrote: The existence of neutral buffer states is why there’s a war. Russia will not permit neutral states to exist if it has the power to conquer them. For Russia only the mighty have the privilege of neutrality. The weak exist at the mercy of the strong and must shelter beneath them, accepting their inferiority and welcoming the domination of their more powerful neighbours. That’s simply the 19th Century imperialist worldview, you’re either an empire in your own right or you’re dominated by an empire. No other state can exist because it would naturally be gobbled up by the nearest empire. Sure there are countries like Ireland that profess neutrality but Russia will never understand why Britain lacks the strength of will to simply reconquer their errant vassal. Had Ukraine picked a side when the Baltic states did there would be no war today. That’s why the historically neutral states near Russia rushed to pick a side. Russia doesn’t recognize neutral buffer states, only colonies that are still unclaimed. Any neutral zone is begging for another war in a decade. I dont think I agree with you on bolded, however I think this kind of reasoning make excellent point for my argument about US not really wanting Ukraine to join NATO. What I'll say now may seem brutal, nevertheless I think this is how it looks from politics point of view: Scenario with Ukraine not being in NATO: Russia attack again, non factors (aka Ukrainians and Russians) are dying, everyone gets to make money (while playing a good guy) - in short, everyone is happy. Scenario with Ukraine being in NATO: Russia attack again, "oh shit" are we going to risk extinction in the name of piece of papers we happened to sign in better times? even if we make some money, what's the use of it if everyone is dead? There is tough decision to make: show NATO as a joke, or risk ultimate showdown. There is no benefits in scenario 2, there is quite few in scenario 1. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23027 Posts
On November 24 2024 12:03 Razyda wrote: I dont think I agree with you on bolded, however I think this kind of reasoning make excellent point for my argument about US not really wanting Ukraine to join NATO. What I'll say now may seem brutal, nevertheless I think this is how it looks from politics point of view: Scenario with Ukraine not being in NATO: Russia attack again, non factors (aka Ukrainians and Russians) are dying, everyone gets to make money (while playing a good guy) - in short, everyone is happy. Scenario with Ukraine being in NATO: Russia attack again, "oh shit" are we going to risk extinction in the name of piece of papers we happened to sign in better times? even if we make some money, what's the use of it if everyone is dead? There is tough decision to make: show NATO as a joke, or risk ultimate showdown. There is no benefits in scenario 2, there is quite few in scenario 1. Who’s making money from Russia invading Ukraine in the West in your scenario one? How is everyone happy? What are you talking about? You had long-term holdouts who didn’t want to join NATO joining NATO You seem to be entirely neglecting an expansionist, aggressive nation encroaching right up to NATO borders, and generally fucking around | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
SC Evo Complete
Dark vs Classic
kiwian vs Spirit
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Clem
MaxPax vs herO
Cure vs SHIN
BSL: ProLeague
Bonyth vs Dienmax
DragOn vs Sterling
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
StarCraft2.fi
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
