[starman2003]

There is only one solution: negotiations

Offer Putin a lifting of all sanctions and he can keep 20 % of Ukraine and the onslaught is over...

You're probably right but what if Putin really gains the upper hand, and wins a big victory by August? He may ask for substantially more, or keep fighting in the hope he'll ultimately get 80-100%.

[Rancid]

With the political election year paralysis in the US and Republican/Trump like uncertainty, it seems European Union is talking control on the central political stage. Never in my wildest dreams did I invision that we will be taking the sole Superpower position unchallenged and without a fight for free basically. If this drags on for a prolonged period of time then I suppose East Asian alliances will also be overwritten along with trade agreements to be a bit more European Union centric. But that would require restarting the military industry and not stopping which seems to be a clear prospect in the Medium and Long term. I guess a thank you to the US is in order.

The only gripe I have with this is that when Europe re-militarizes then we swing to the right and sometimes right through Belgium, but I am sure we are wise enough not to do this again?

It's certainly possible. Given that that Europe subsidization of social programs would have to get limited. Gives the right wing the excuse to say "You see! All those leftist social programs are failures! Time for a change!". People will buy it. At the same time, these western nations are browner, so not sure how nationalism would work.

It goes back to an earlier point I made about America. America is browner now, so I think the in future will be harder for military adventures in Latin America. For example, why would I vote for a candidate that wants to invade the DR?

Do you think Ukraine is at the peak of what they would be able to keep, or do you think they can take back more land? Further, if they settle (give up Donbas and Crimea), does that secure the rest of Ukraine further in the future? This appears to be one of the principal concerns. That a negotiated end, just post pones a second war from Russia after they have retooled/regrouped for a couple of years.

[late]

You're probably right but what if Putin really gains the upper hand, and wins a big victory by August? He may ask for substantially more, or keep fighting in the hope he'll ultimately get 80-100%.

Russia has a tradition of trying to plug the gaps to make defense easier. Ukraine is on the way to 2 of them, and that means he intends to conquer 4 or 5 NATO countries.

[JohnRawls]

It's certainly possible. Given that that Europe subsidization of social programs would have to get limited. Gives the right wing the excuse to say "You see! All those leftist social programs are failures! Time for a change!". People will buy it. At the same time, these western nations are browner, so not sure how nationalism would work.

It goes back to an earlier point I made about America. America is browner now, so I think the in future will be harder for military adventures in Latin America. For example, why would I vote for a candidate that wants to invade the DR?

Do you think Ukraine is at the peak of what they would be able to keep, or do you think they can take back more land? Further, if they settle (give up Donbas and Crimea), does that secure the rest of Ukraine further in the future? This appears to be one of the principal concerns. That a negotiated end, just post pones a second war from Russia after they have retooled/regrouped for a couple of years.

They are at their weakest right now, 2025 both European Industry will be far larger than in 2024 to what is needed and also the US election year will be over so there will be some certainty about the US. Russia also has 2ish years left of Soviet Stock and the quality of troops is decreasing.

The long impact of this is that Russia won't have a better position than this year and taking like 0.01% of Ukraine is a very good month for them shows their hand perfectly.

Europe alone will overpower Russia eventually even if US provides nothing like now.

The longer impact of this is detrimental more to US than Ukraine I would say. You are loosing relations and friendships that you have built over the last 100 years+. Basically you built stuff up and now giving it away for free. Its not like Taiwan or Japan or Korea gonna trust you either after this. US is also behaving sort of like Russia that agreements are only paper and not really agreements at least in the eyes of your allies. Now, there is an argument that not all agreements are made equal but you get the point. US has an assurance to Ukraine to protect it which it literally doesn't fullfil while Europe doesn't have it and actually doing all of the heavy lifting.

There will be consequences to this if maintained for a prolonged period of time. Japan, Taiwan, Korea will just look at this and will be like? Why did we even sign good trade agreements with the US to make our relations closer if our main concern is security which they no longer provide or can not be trusted to provide. Why not make an agreements with European Union which actually keeps its promises, agreements and values.

[Potemkin]

They are at their weakest right now, 2025 both European Industry will be far larger than in 2024 to what is needed and also the US election year will be over so there will be some certainty about the US. Russia also has 2ish years left of Soviet Stock and the quality of troops is decreasing.

The long impact of this is that Russia won't have a better position than this year and taking like 0.01% of Ukraine is a very good month for them shows their hand perfectly.

Europe alone will overpower Russia eventually even if US provides nothing like now.

The longer impact of this is detrimental more to US than Ukraine I would say. You are loosing relations and friendships that you have built over the last 100 years+. Basically you built stuff up and now giving it away for free. Its not like Taiwan or Japan or Korea gonna trust you either after this. US is also behaving sort of like Russia that agreements are only paper and not really agreements at least in the eyes of your allies. Now, there is an argument that not all agreements are made equal but you get the point. US has an assurance to Ukraine to protect it which it literally doesn't fullfil while Europe doesn't have it and actually doing all of the heavy lifting.

There will be consequences to this if maintained for a prolonged period of time. Japan, Taiwan, Korea will just look at this and will be like? Why did we even sign good trade agreements with the US to make our relations closer if our main concern is security which they no longer provide or can not be trusted to provide. Why not make an agreements with European Union which actually keeps its promises, agreements and values.

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” - Dr Henry Kissinger

[Tainari88]

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” - Dr Henry Kissinger

I have been saying this for a long time. But the ones totally brainwashed by US government propaganda did not listen. Lol.

You know who you are.

[JohnRawls]

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” - Dr Henry Kissinger

Oh god, here comes the memes. It was in context of the Vietnam war and unless you are trying to say that US is going to remove Zelensky then I am not sure what you are trying to meme here.

[RealPolitic]

@JohnRawls

I hate to say this, but I think Dr. Henry Kissinger was right. I hate that the US is 'wishy washy." If you are going to support your allies, you support your allies all the way till the end. No wishy washy bullshit where one day, you are supporting your allies and then the next day, all the sudden, you want to abandon your allies. The U.S. needs to show that it is a reliable and stable ally. That will cost the US for refusing to be a reliable and stable ally. If you are going to be an ally, no wishy washy bullshit. You are in it, till the end. That way you have a good reputation for keeping your word and having honor.

[Tainari88]

Oh god, here comes the memes. It was in context of the Vietnam war and unless you are trying to say that US is going to remove Zelensky then I am not sure what you are trying to meme here.

He is saying that trusting the US to stand by their agreements when it goes against their interests in the long run? Is foolish and naive.

That is what the quote from Kissinger is about. You think the US is your friend but when the rubber hits the road the end goal is to fuck everyone else over and drain them dry of resources so that they can keep being the ones making decisions of import.

They are going to roar and burn as much as they can before or during their descent. Remember that.

[JohnRawls]

He is saying that trusting the US to stand by their agreements when it goes against their interests in the long run? Is foolish and naive.

That is what the quote from Kissinger is about. You think the US is your friend but when the rubber hits the road the end goal is to fuck everyone else over and drain them dry of resources so that they can keep being the ones making decisions of import.

They are going to roar and burn as much as they can before or during their descent. Remember that.

No, that quote is Kissinger was about Diem and Thiel or whatever their names were. The idea was that Americans supported one and hence he managed to overthrow the other. In context of Ukraine this means Budanov overthrowing Zelensky.

That's why I called it a meme. Everybody just using quotes out of context or even knowing why it was said.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

I hate to say this, but I think Dr. Henry Kissinger was right. I hate that the US is 'wishy washy." If you are going to support your allies, you support your allies all the way till the end. No wishy washy bullshit where one day, you are supporting your allies and then the next day, all the sudden, you want to abandon your allies. The U.S. needs to show that it is a reliable and stable ally. That will cost the US for refusing to be a reliable and stable ally. If you are going to be an ally, no wishy washy bullshit. You are in it, till the end. That way you have a good reputation for keeping your word and having honor.

Is Budanov going to coup Zelensky or what?

[RealPolitic]

@Tainari88

He is saying that trusting the US to stand by their agreements when it goes against their interests in the long run? Is foolish and naive.

Your interpretation is correct. I think the reason the US abandoned Vietnam was because it sought to open up to China at the time and have good relations with China given that China was at odds with the Soviet Union. This was a grand opportunity for the US to split the Soviets and Chinese and pit them against each other.

So, South Vietnam could be abandoned and left to the North Vietnamese who put South Vietnamese who were sympathetic to the South Vietnamese government into concentration "re-education camps" to slowly kill them all off over a period of time without sparking international outrage. China would not want to be friendly with the US so long as the US was in South Vietnam.

Therefore, it served US interests to simply abandon South Vietnam in return for good relations with China to split the Soviets and Chinese against each other instead of having them united against the US.

[late]

@JohnRawls

I hate to say this, but I think Dr. Henry Kissinger was right. I hate that the US is 'wishy washy." If you are going to support your allies, you support your allies all the way till the end. No wishy washy bullshit where one day, you are supporting your allies and then the next day, all the sudden, you want to abandon your allies. The U.S. needs to show that it is a reliable and stable ally. That will cost the US for refusing to be a reliable and stable ally. If you are going to be an ally, no wishy washy bullshit. You are in it, till the end. That way you have a good reputation for keeping your word and having honor.

Dr K made a lot of mistakes.

But the current dysfunction in the House is insane. It's one thing to want change, it's another to drive us into chaos and war... Not exactly the change most had in mind...

Let me give you an example. We were all in, in Korea. We are also still there. While we said we were all in, in Vietnam, we never were. Both Russia and China would get heavily involved if we moved North, and we weren't up for that.

But Ukraine.. that's a no brainer.

[RealPolitic]

@late

But Ukraine.. that's a no brainer.

I agree. It serves the US to continue its support for Ukraine. Its dysfunction from the Republican party that is preventing it. Part of the dysfunction in the Republican party comes from corruption in good public policy over the past several decades.

As far as North Korea and Vietnam, we were never all in either war. If we were all in on North Korea, Truman would have never fired MacArthur for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. World War II was the last war where we were all in. We abandoned South Vietnam simply because China and the Soviets developed bad relations and it was our opportunity to split off China from the Soviets. But we had to abandoned South Vietnam to do that successfully. South Vietnam was expendable when we saw the opportunity to split the Chinese off from the Soviets and pit them against each other. That served our interests better when the opportunity arised.

[late]

@late



I agree. It serves the US to continue its support for Ukraine. Its dysfunction from the Republican party that is preventing it. Part of the dysfunction in the Republican party comes from corruption in good public policy over the past several decades.

As far as North Korea and Vietnam, we were never all in either war. If we were all in on North Korea, Truman would have never fired MacArthur for threatening the use of nuclear weapons. World War II was the last war where we were all in. We abandoned South Vietnam simply because China and the Soviets developed bad relations and it was our opportunity to split off China from the Soviets. But we had to abandoned South Vietnam to do that successfully. South Vietnam was expendable when we saw the opportunity to split the Chinese off from the Soviets and pit them against each other. That served our interests better when the opportunity arised.

Vietnam was a mistake from the beginning.

We are using different ideas of what 'all in' means. When the military brass suggested using nukes again, Truman said "Don't ask me to use those horrible things again."

Nukes are fundamentally different, and using them is always a mistake.

M.A.D...

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88



Your interpretation is correct. I think the reason the US abandoned Vietnam was because it sought to open up to China at the time and have good relations with China given that China was at odds with the Soviet Union. This was a grand opportunity for the US to split the Soviets and Chinese and pit them against each other.

So, South Vietnam could be abandoned and left to the North Vietnamese who put South Vietnamese who were sympathetic to the South Vietnamese government into concentration "re-education camps" to slowly kill them all off over some time without sparking international outrage. China would not want to be friendly with the US so long as the US was in South Vietnam.

Therefore, it served US interests to simply abandon South Vietnam in return for good relations with China to split the Soviets and Chinese against each other instead of having them united against the US.

It was a nationalist war in Vietnam. Vietnam wanted to be its own country without interference from the Americans, the French, or anyone else. The internal divisions only favored the colonizing powers from outside the country.

Some theories floated about the reason for the invasion was the containment of communist thought. Kissinger was a fan of drastic wars with high casualty counts just for being slightly leftist. Imperialism did not bother him.

Some thought it was about titanium in Vietnam.

Trying to create divisions and break up any kind of cohesion in the USSR and the PRC was important indeed.

In the end in my opinion, if you are relying on war that is incessant to make a profit and your Pentagon in the DC relies on continual wars without really winning them for some cause but just as a way of keeping the Defense industry in play and drying the taxpayer of any real funds for infrastructure and keeping all the programs and social security viable etc.? You will make sure your nation is going to drop down the list of nations who can back up their agreements.

For me, the US government always has never backed their agreements if it affects their pocketbook or their ability to control land and territory and dominate an enemy. They will lie and break their word.

The ones who are shocked by their two-faced shit are the ones who do not care about other nations or small countries being backstabbed because they are worthless selfish thinkers too.

[RealPolitic]

@late

Vietnam was a mistake from the beginning.

We are using different ideas of what 'all in' means. When the military brass suggested using nukes again, Truman said "Don't ask me to use those horrible things again."

Nukes are fundamentally different, and using them is always a mistake.

M.A.D...

Here we go again, mixing international relations with morals. Again, there is no room for morals in international relations. Ultimately, international relations are about interests and shared interests. That's how things operate in international relations. After firing MacArthur, Truman was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese when the Chinese were refusing to sign the armistice after trying to play deceptive games against the naive US delegation sent to negotiate with the Chinese and North Koreans.

We positioned nuclear bombers in Okinawa at the time in preparations for nuclear weapons use against the Chinese as leverage to force the Chinese to sign the armistice. Which the Chinese did once they knew their forces could face a nuclear weapons attack. The threat that Truman would order the use of nuclear weapons after the Chinese were playing deceptive games at the negotiating table was perceived as a credible threat by the Chinese. Hence, they they signed and stopped playing games.

Moreover, the main reason why NATO never intervened directly to help Ukraine was because of the credible threat that Russia would use nuclear weapons in response.

[RealPolitic]

@Tainari88

It was a nationalist war in Vietnam. Vietnam wanted to be its own country without interference from the Americans, the French, or anyone else. The internal divisions only favored the colonizing powers from outside the country.

Some theories floated about the reason for the invasion was the containment of communist thought. Kissinger was a fan of drastic wars with high casualty counts just for being slightly leftist. Imperialism did not bother him.

Some thought it was about titanium in Vietnam.

Trying to create divisions and break up any kind of cohesion in the USSR and the PRC was important indeed.

In the end in my opinion, if you are relying on war that is incessant to make a profit and your Pentagon in the DC relies on continual wars without really winning them for some cause but just as a way of keeping the Defense industry in play and drying the taxpayer of any real funds for infrastructure and keeping all the programs and social security viable etc.? You will make sure your nation is going to drop down the list of nations who can back up their agreements.

For me, the US government always has never backed their agreements if it affects their pocketbook or their ability to control land and territory and dominate an enemy. They will lie and break their word.

The ones who are shocked by their two-faced shit are the ones who do not care about other nations or small countries being backstabbed because they are worthless selfish thinkers too.

Kissinger was a realist when it came to international relations. He knew his job was to serve the best interest of the United States, which he did. He also understood that there is no room for morals in international relations. Sometimes that means engaging in imperialism to serve the best interests of the United States.

For the North Vietnamese, it was a nationalist war of independence, but for the US the Vietnam War was about containing communism. It was part of our policy of containment. Abandoning South Vietnam when we did, in return for developing better relations with China, served that interest of containing communism. The North Vietnamese were not wanting to sign a peace treaty when we wanted to pull out of Vietnam to develop better relations with China.

So, we bombed them with massive bombing runs without restrictions that totally destroyed North Vietnam's capacity to wage war at the time. That forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table to sign the peace agreement. This is what Kissinger referred to as "bombing the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions" to them.

Of course, after we withdrew from Vietnam, the Soviet Union resupplied and rebuilt the North Vietnamese capability to wage war so they could attack and take over South Vietnam since our troops were no longer there.

[RealPolitic]

@Tainari88

The most dangerous people are not organized criminals in the mafia. They wear suits and ties and have pens. These are the most dangerous and most powerful people.

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88

The most dangerous people are not organized criminals in the mafia. They wear suits and ties and have pens. These are the most dangerous and most powerful people.

Of course. You see these trials and people shocked by serial killers like Dahmer. But in reality the worst of the serial killers coldly calculate huge bombing campaigns over deals like you just mentioned.

When you think about it? The truth is one should fear the men in suits way more than the serial average criminals.

They do a lot more damage.

I really despise people like Kissinger who get into politics with cold hearts and deeply sociopathic sense of international relations. But that is the world of politics.

Then people do not understand why the nations who are always threatened by invasion want to create their own nukes to protect themselves.

Imagine a world where every nation has a nuke to make sure they are not invaded by these immoral horrors posing as men? Terrible.