pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 20 replies \ @PlebeiusG 14 Feb \ parent \ on: EU discusses expropriation of frozen Russian assets news
What should be done about this Russian aggression? No good choices in war.
We never seized Soviet assets during the Cold War or German or Italian or Japanese assets during World War Two. I am not talking about Japanese Americans who lost their property during internment
How about neutrality? Humanitarian help? Diplomacy?
reply
Doesn't always work.
Eventually you need force, sometimes.
Some people wont stop. Some people are unreasonable.
reply
But would haven been worth a try. Now 600.000 Ukrainians and 70.000 Russians are dead
reply
Those are two unrelated events, sir.
The suggestion that we should have tried peaceful diplomacy with Putin is naive.
Appears the tactic has been to wear down Russian economy and use wartime attrition at the expense of willing Ukrainians who joined the fight.
Would you suggest I peacefully speak with an armed home invader? They are not reasonable people. You shoot them in the face!
We are using economic warfare as a means to forestall physical warfare.
Russian tanks would have turned Ghandi into a pink smear in the dirt.
reply
Johnson stopped a possible peace negociation April 2022. These people are part of what Eisenhower called the military ind. complex. All financed by money printing.
reply
Why would Boris have any say?
Do you think Ukraine should have given the eastern regions to Russia?
Russia would have stopped maybe? Well they didn't after annexing crimea.
This is the narrative.
Russia is in a fight for national survival over territory and resources, imo.
The nazi germans were given territory early in WWII and they abused it.
The USA has a strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Fools errand.
reply
Ukraine should be neutral, no EU or nato membership.
That is poking the Russian bear.
Supporting Ukraine is the culmination of misguided nato enlargement east of the iron curtain
Why provoke Russia if you don’t have to?
reply
Okay, I'll try once again to make the point very briefly, which is difficult here: Neutrality is the order of the day in any war involving a third nation. what are we doing other than fuelling a war with weapons and new ammunition and more money, a local war that is more or less a civil war and has now caused almost a million deaths? surely you can't be serious! does anyone here remember America's numerous so-called small interventions in Afghanistan in Syria in Kosovo in Iraq 1 in Iraq 2 etc etc? what did they lose there? To secure democracy? can I have this joke in color again!
as for the background of such conflicts: it is clear that there is a war party in London and Washington that has nothing to do with the conventional parties. these are interest groups that make money from war. i'm not saying that, people like President Eisenhower and others are saying that.
you are too quick to fall for their media propaganda. i know this because i have been professionally active in this sector myself for 25 years with my own company. your question as media consumers should therefore be: how can it be that people have fallen for this trap again and am talking about a war that they personally have nothing to do with?
support civilians through humanitarian action if you want to as an individual. but don't use taxpayers' money to feed wars we have no part in.
reply
The russian ukrainian war it's not a civil war.
Second, if we support aid thru arms is that not ok? I call that a form of humanitarian aid. They are being invaded by a foreign nation. Aid includes glide bombs and MANPADS.
They salute the blue and yellow. Not putin.