#ChinaRussiaSCOOP
— Demetri・FT (@Dimi) March 14, 2022
US has told allies that China has responded positively to Russia’s request for military equipment. Cables to allies in Europe & Asia do not say if China has provided help or just told Moscow that it would provide support. (@FT)https://t.co/YoknDAYWar
Ukraine invaded by Putin
84,580 Views |
1093 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by HuMcK
Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
I know.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we have to negotiate with our enemies to avoid a bigger conflict. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. Yet, we have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Behind the closed doors...
I think it would be appropriate to settle on a similar "solution" as you have presented.
Agree to the demand that Ukraine will not join NATO. Also agree that NATO members will not create bases within Ukraine. However also demand that NATO will defend Ukraine against any invasions in the future.
A REAL leader would have done all of this months and months ago... but it's very clear that Putin has no fear (respect) for Biden.
Trump did all of this without needing direct, official negotiations. He sent very clear diplomatic messages to Putin, that Trump would NOT tolerate Russian expansions. He did this in part by bombing Syria and destroying ISIS leaders & their families.
A smart negotiator has already setup his arguments, long before the official meetings take place. An excellent negotiator never even needs the meetings, but gets what he wants without it.
Putin is establishing a position of overwhelming strength, for the coming negotiations. He will occupy more than half of Ukraine, have control over more than half of their energy resources (including nuclear plant output), have Kiev in a stranglehold, and reinforce his positions in Belarus & Moldova. He will give back Kiev, most of his occupied land, and much of the energy resources... but he will get everything he wanted at the outset: eastern Ukraine & Crimea recognized as part of Russia, western Ukraine declared to be permanently rejected from NATO, expanded energy resources, completion of Nordstream pipeline, capitulation to future pipelines into EU across Ukraine & Poland, and a firm control over the north region of the Black Sea with free passage into the Med.
Putin is playing chess while Biden... is trying to remember his own name.
ShooterTX
Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Yup. Not worth the risk.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
ShooterTX
RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
Any Russian progress is about to grind to a halt. Ukraine is about to be a mud pit. Putin is so lacking right now for personnel that he is transporting Syrian and Libyan "militia" to Russia for training. They will be less skilled than than the poor conscripts who were lied into this operation.Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
I think the Syrian mercenaries are being used because they have less scruples about fighting Ukrainians than the average Russian.Amal Shuq-Up said:Any Russian progress is about to grind to a halt. Ukraine is about to be a mud pit. Putin is so lacking right now for personnel that he is transporting Syrian and Libyan "militia" to Russia for training. They will be less skilled than than the poor conscripts who were lied into this operation.Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
And because it allows the Kremlin to keep Russian losses down.
Kremlin has plenty of troops...but this is not the old Stalinist Red army. Every solider they lose hurts them with pubic support back home.
We have no real measure of certainty that WWIII hasn't already started.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
We can have a much more real measure of certainty if we commit ground troops and air power to Ukraine.D. C. Bear said:We have no real measure of certainty that WWIII hasn't already started.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Naturally.Mothra said:We can have a much more real measure of certainty if we commit ground troops and air power to Ukraine.D. C. Bear said:We have no real measure of certainty that WWIII hasn't already started.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
So it took him 4 years to figure out that he wasn't getting anywhere? You really believe that is why he invaded on Biden's watch???DancinBear09 said:ShooterTX said:DancinBear09 said:RMF5630 said:ShooterTX said:
This is so ridiculous.
Putin takes Crimea under the weak Obama.
Putin invades Ukraine under the weak Biden.
Yet there are morons who believe that Trump was weak??
In a few months, Xi will begin his move on Taiwan. Then he will look at Indonesia and Malaysia. He will claim to be going there to bring stability to the chaos.
I doubt Putin will directly invade a NATO ally, but that really depends upon how sleepy Joe responds to Ukraine. If he continues to project weakness, then Putin might go after the Czech Republic, Serbia, and some other eastern block nations.
It won't be a World War if Biden just rolls over like Chamberlain did in the 1930s... which sounds like the most likely scenario.
This is what happens when you eject a moron who claims that white supremacy and climate change are the greatest threats to America. Biden is either a fool, or evil... take your pick. Either he was too stupid to recognize the true threats, or he is an evil ******* who lied about the true threats.
Either way, democrats have given us this disaster when they voted for this idiot.
Yeah Putin owned Trump? Didn't see tanks roll on his watch.
I think Putin will challenge NATO commitment in a lithuania and then other Baltic states. Poland i think is a bridge too far.
I think Putin saw somewhat of ally in Trump (in a way unbeknownst to Trump). I feel Putin' plan was to play into Trump's narcissistic pathology by providing complements and "buddying up" to Trump in an effort to manipulate Trump's influence on NATO and the rest of the European PMs to get them to cool down or kill discussions about Ukraine joining NATO. That never ended up happening, Biden became president, and I imagine he saw Biden as somewhat of a weak enough leader to where he could flex his military might with little to no military reprisal from the West. Make no mistake about it though, this is 30 years in the making. Ukraine has slowly been gravitating towards Western influence for years. The have been begging to join NATO, they ousted a Russian loyalist PM out of office, and the West has not denied The possibility of Ukraine's admittance into NATO. Putin sees this as a huge threat and feels this is is last option.
Revisionist history.
The closest Ukraine came to joining NATO was before Trump. By the time Trump came to office, Putin already had Crimea. Trump was doing all he could to keep Putin contained, but by that time Ukraine was split on the idea of joining NATO. Many in Ukraine believed joining would antagonize Russia, and lead to a full invasion and full war. Many in Ukraine didn't want their nation to become the battle front for WW3... they would rather hope for peaceful coexistence with Russia. That worked for a few years, until America "elected" one of the weakest presidents in history.
Now Putin faces no resistance, and can easily gain ground & resources. He also gains a huge bargaining chip for the next round of negotiations with the west.
Obama made it possible to take Crimea and now Biden makes it possible to take Ukraine. Trump was a deterrent while he was in office. The idea that Putin liked Trump is stupid. Putin gained nothing under Trump... how was that good for him?
The annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the ouster of Yanukovych after he refused to sign a very popular trade agreement w/ the EU in Feb of 2014. As for Trump, he is pathologically susceptible to manipulation through flattery. It's been shown time and time again he will do things for you if you shower him w/ praise. Putin was hopeful that Trump would help him w/ the EU/NATO on Ukraine and Trump didn't press the issue.
Does recruiting mercs play into it? We now have:Canada2017 said:Naturally.Mothra said:We can have a much more real measure of certainty if we commit ground troops and air power to Ukraine.D. C. Bear said:We have no real measure of certainty that WWIII hasn't already started.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Russia invading Ukraine with Russian, Belarus, Chechnya, and Syria
Iran bombing Iraq
China threatening "terrible consequences" if anyone helps Taiwan
Russia threatening Sweden and Finland
NATO's 31 nations mobilizing
So, how many nations have to be involved for it to be a WW? We are hitting 42 or so. Yeah, we should just stay out that will keep it from escalating.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-syrian-mercenaries-dirty-tricks-ukraine
I'm not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. We should have sent military support & intel support months ago, but that is just another example of how piss poor Biden is as a leader.Mothra said:RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
At this point, we need to set Poland & NATO as the redline. We MUST send troops to protect our NATO allies. If we do not, then we are surrendering the entire globe to Putin and Xi. Sadly, i think the absolute weakness of Biden will result in further invasions by Russia, and China annexing Taiwan. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on the energy resources of VietNam as well.
Biden is by far the worst foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter... and he might just eclipse that one as well. Our NATO allies have rallied together because they realize that there is NOTHING coming out of Washington DC these days, so they only have each other to rely upon. Biden's weakness has brought together NATO, not his "strong leadership". So in that sense, many of the posters here are correct... Trump couldn't have rallied NATO in the same way that Biden has done, because Trump was too strong for that to happen.
ShooterTX
No, I said Putin using Nukes would not be based on anything we did. Putin will use Nukes if he thinks he needs them REGARDLESS of how much we stay out. Nothing Putin does is based on the US actions, Putin acts for Putin. We are the ones reacting.ShooterTX said:I'm not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. We should have sent military support & intel support months ago, but that is just another example of how piss poor Biden is as a leader.Mothra said:RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
At this point, we need to set Poland & NATO as the redline. We MUST send troops to protect our NATO allies. If we do not, then we are surrendering the entire globe to Putin and Xi. Sadly, i think the absolute weakness of Biden will result in further invasions by Russia, and China annexing Taiwan. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on the energy resources of VietNam as well.
Biden is by far the worst foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter... and he might just eclipse that one as well. Our NATO allies have rallied together because they realize that there is NOTHING coming out of Washington DC these days, so they only have each other to rely upon. Biden's weakness has brought together NATO, not his "strong leadership". So in that sense, many of the posters here are correct... Trump couldn't have rallied NATO in the same way that Biden has done, because Trump was too strong for that to happen.
I am for an No-Fly, it is the only thing that will make a difference. Funny, I am hearing more and more nations and people agreeing.
If NATO fights Russia in Ukraine or anywhere else, the US has to go with troops on the ground. Or, give up any leadership role in the world. Yes, those have been my positions from the beginning.
Sending the Carrier and troops to NATO have been actions I do agree with Biden on. Overall, Biden is the cause of this because he told Putin we would not stop him. Putin went and made other financial arrangements with China and now India.
Not seeing any positions that are indefensible.
Taiwan is doomed.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
Sadly, i think the absolute weakness of Biden will result in further invasions by Russia, and China annexing Taiwan. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on the energy resources of VietNam as well.
But the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and have already fought a border war with them a few decades ago.
Kicked some Chinese ass.
Vietnam won't roll over.
Don't disagree with any of this. But shedding American blood on the ground in a former Soviet state, as RMF5630 has been pushing for weeks now (he absurdly calls anything short of this "appeasement"), is truly nutso warmongering.ShooterTX said:I'm not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. We should have sent military support & intel support months ago, but that is just another example of how piss poor Biden is as a leader.Mothra said:RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
At this point, we need to set Poland & NATO as the redline. We MUST send troops to protect our NATO allies. If we do not, then we are surrendering the entire globe to Putin and Xi. Sadly, i think the absolute weakness of Biden will result in further invasions by Russia, and China annexing Taiwan. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on the energy resources of VietNam as well.
Biden is by far the worst foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter... and he might just eclipse that one as well. Our NATO allies have rallied together because they realize that there is NOTHING coming out of Washington DC these days, so they only have each other to rely upon. Biden's weakness has brought together NATO, not his "strong leadership". So in that sense, many of the posters here are correct... Trump couldn't have rallied NATO in the same way that Biden has done, because Trump was too strong for that to happen.
We can be assured that a ground war between Russia and NATO forces in Ukraine will indeed lead to a world and potentially nuclear war.
No question our enemies are taking their cue from Jimmy Carter 2.0 currently in office.
Can't disagree.Canada2017 said:Taiwan is doomed.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:RMF5630 has called for troops on the ground and air power in the skies to fight Russians in Ukraine in numerous posts the last few days and weeks. He even admitted that he advocated for all of the above, despite the fact that he believes Putin will use nukes. It's insane.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Boots on the ground and jets in the air could lead to his use of a nuke in Ukraine, especially if his invasion grinds to a halt.Mothra said:Was not referring to you.D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Keeping troops out of it is one of the few areas where I agree with Biden. We should not ask Americans to sacrifice their sons for a former Soviet republic.
Who is advocating for war?
Sadly, i think the absolute weakness of Biden will result in further invasions by Russia, and China annexing Taiwan. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on the energy resources of VietNam as well.
But the Vietnamese hate the Chinese and have already fought a border war with them a few decades ago.
Kicked some Chinese ass.
Vietnam won't roll over.
“Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.”
— Bull Moose Society🇺🇸 (@BullMooseSoci) March 11, 2022
Absolutely astonishing. During Russian Channel 1’s evening news broadcast, a woman ran onto the set with a sign: “No war…Don’t believe the propaganda. They’re lying to you here.” pic.twitter.com/wBdFGtzTsg
— Steve Rosenberg (@BBCSteveR) March 14, 2022
This shows how much Russia is “encircled“ by NATO. https://t.co/PDzwReD8e7
— Tomasz Kowalczewski (@tkowalcz) March 13, 2022
We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
Now add the lines to the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea and Georgia. Then you'll see why Putin doesn't want Ukraine (and Georgia before that) in NATOjupiter said:This shows how much Russia is “encircled“ by NATO. https://t.co/PDzwReD8e7
— Tomasz Kowalczewski (@tkowalcz) March 13, 2022
This Taleb guy is an idiot and liberal boot licker. I've tried to tell you before and you keep putting his tweets on here.
Not necessarily. You're hung up on nukes. Wars today are fought on many different fronts and aren't always just about bombs and bullets.Canada2017 said:I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
It would be economically ugly for us in the short term, but a unified US, Japanese, and European mass sanction of China could be a real game changer in the near future. India is the oddity here. Likes Russia, hates China. Self interest there as Russia is selling their oil and gas at deep discounts compared to the global market.
However, not sure the West's love of comfort gives us the wherewithal to sacrifice long enough.
The protester is an employee of Channel 1, the OVD-Info rights group says. She recorded a video beforehand: “I’m now deeply ashamed … We silently watched this anti-human regime … We are Russian people, thinking and smart ones. Only we have the power to stop all this craziness.” pic.twitter.com/1adrXrUUAt
— Anton Troianovski (@antontroian) March 14, 2022
ATL Bear said:Not necessarily. You're hung up on nukes. Wars today are fought on many different fronts and aren't always just about bombs and bullets.Canada2017 said:I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
It would be economically ugly for us in the short term, but a unified US, Japanese, and European mass sanction of China could be a real game changer in the near future. India is the oddity here. Likes Russia, hates China. Self interest there as Russia is selling their oil and gas at deep discounts compared to the global market.
However, not sure the West's love of comfort gives us the wherewithal to sacrifice long enough.
You are correct, several on here are pre-occupied with nukes. Pretty much willing to keep the US out of it no matter what happens to the part of the world that does not have a binding agreement with the US. Pretty much punting the other 70% to Putin and Xi.
Oh, they will do sanctions, but nothing those actually invading consider inflammatory. That has been my problem with that stance, they seem more concerned about the feelings of those invading than the sovereign nation being invaded.
One would guess Ukrainians have come to know differently about the realities of bombs and bullets. Otherwise sanctions would work and wars would be unnecessary .ATL Bear said:Not necessarily. You're hung up on nukes. Wars today are fought on many different fronts and aren't always just about bombs and bullets.Canada2017 said:I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
Nukes have always been a tactical option for NATO as the United States does not have the army or support of the American people for a war in Europe .
And that is a stone cold fact.
Putin has to win in Ukraine or lose power...and most likely his life . He is going to do whatever it takes in order to survive. That makes Putin very dangerous .
The best hope for everyone is a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia as well as between NATO-EU and Russia . Suspect Ukraine is willing to compromise even if Putin is not .
Canada2017 said:One would guess Ukrainians have come to know differently about the realities of bombs and bullets. Otherwise sanctions would work and wars would be unnecessary .ATL Bear said:Not necessarily. You're hung up on nukes. Wars today are fought on many different fronts and aren't always just about bombs and bullets.Canada2017 said:I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
Nukes have always been a tactical option for NATO as the United States does not have the army or support of the American people for a war in Europe .
And that is a stone cold fact.
Putin has to win in Ukraine or lose power...and most likely his life . He is going to do whatever it takes in order to survive. That makes Putin very dangerous .
The best hope for everyone is a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia as well as between NATO-EU and Russia . Suspect Ukraine is willing to compromise even if Putin is not .
I agree with you on the Putin side. Putin will use what he needs to win, period. What we or NATO does is not going to dictate Putins moves. We can show restraint, not escalate or send him candy, it does not matter. Putin is about Putin, he will do what is necessary for him.
There will be no negotiation, Putin only negotiates when he has no choice. He is calling shots and Biden is letting him. Biden said we would not help Ukraine in only way that matters to Putin, troops on the ground and planes in the air.
Tell us, should the US put American lives on the line every time a sovereign nation is invaded? What countries are worth risking US lives and nuclear war to you? Is it just European countries? How about Africa? South America? And how are we going to afford being the world's policeman every time another country in the world acts up? We're already pretty much bankrupt.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:Not necessarily. You're hung up on nukes. Wars today are fought on many different fronts and aren't always just about bombs and bullets.Canada2017 said:I pray that is not the case.ATL Bear said:We're already in WWIII. We're just continuing to push the escalation boundaries.Canada2017 said:That is an impossible line to draw with any real measure of certainty that it won't result in WW3 .D. C. Bear said:Maybe not all out war with Russia, but I wish we had enough boots and advanced weapons on the ground there to grind his invasion to a halt.Mothra said:I agree with that. Openly negotiating is not a good idea. But again, I am not sure ruling out Ukraine becoming a part of NATO is a big ask, especially if it will preserve peace. Like Russia, we wouldn't want Russian forces and bases on the other side of the Rio Grande.ShooterTX said:Mothra said:Honest question: Was it completely out of the realm of possibility for Biden to say: "Ukraine will never be a part of NATO?" If Putin doesn't want American bases, troops and missiles at his border, would it be "appeasement" to tell him what he wants to hear? Do we not do that with our enemies at times? Have we not done that with China and Taiwan? Or are we likewise "appeasing" China?bear2be2 said:History would suggest that appeasing and/or ignoring the threats and offenses of maniacal dictators also leads to prolonged war. So this isn't as simple as most are trying to make it.Doc Holliday said:And that's how you get prolonged war.HuMcK said:.@SenatorRomney: "Send these MiGs...Enough talk. People are dying. Send them the plans that they need."
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 10, 2022
Sen. Romney on Putin: "It's time for him to fear what we might do." pic.twitter.com/hNXMZea488
If there's a prolonged war, it was both started and prolonged by one party. The western world's response/non-response to Putin won't make any difference if he is as determined as he appears to be to continue his imperial march.
There is no legitimate excuse for Putin's invasion, but the idea that this entire conflict is on one person just isn't reality. Conflicts rarely are.
If you are going to make such an offer, you do it at the negotiation table, not in the freaking media to the world!
You go into the private meeting with Putin, having declared that we will never give anything, and we are considering all out warfare. Then when you come out of the meeting with a ceasefire, it is seen as progress for both sides. Then after more meetings & negotiations, you come away with ceeding the Eastern provinces to Russia, and an agreement that Ukraine will never join NATO, but Russia also agrees to something.... THAT is how you negotiate.
You NEVER go into a major negotiation by publicly announcing that you will give into every demand being made by the other side. If you do that, then you have no room for compromise. You must set the stage so that both sides can claim some victories, and both sides can give some concessions.
What Biden is doing is to declare an unconditional surrender, before the war has even begun. Biden Inc. are giving a clinic on international weakness!
Putin is a bad dude, no question. But sometimes we negotiate with our enemies. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it. We have a neocon jughead and war monger on this thread that wants an all out war with Russia, potential nuclear consequences be damned. It's simply asinine.
Would be the worst event in human history .
It would be economically ugly for us in the short term, but a unified US, Japanese, and European mass sanction of China could be a real game changer in the near future. India is the oddity here. Likes Russia, hates China. Self interest there as Russia is selling their oil and gas at deep discounts compared to the global market.
However, not sure the West's love of comfort gives us the wherewithal to sacrifice long enough.
You are correct, several on here are pre-occupied with nukes. Pretty much willing to keep the US out of it no matter what happens to the part of the world that does not have a binding agreement with the US. Pretty much punting the other 70% to Putin and Xi.
Oh, they will do sanctions, but nothing those actually invading consider inflammatory. That has been my problem with that stance, they seem more concerned about the feelings of those invading than the sovereign nation being invaded.
And I have to say, it's odd that you would reduce concern over risking global thermonuclear war over a former Soviet state to fear of hurting Putin's feelings. I think most reasonable, non-war mongering people realize what's at stake if we decide to initiate a war with Russia, present company excluded of course.
What is the opinion on Russia military not being superior to Ukraine? is Russia more intimidation and fear from Putin toward the West? Who predicted 19 days or longer ? curious as to opinions