Replacing previous thread which has continuing page count issues.
Previous Thread
Previous Original Thread:
Threabanned posters:
brickstser69
slay55
mulbot
First is the job of creating conditions for peace. Very difficult to see them being relevant at all after the announcement that " Ukraine is on the irreversible course to Nato membership " and continuing to send arms.
Plenty of things to come out soon enough no doubt before we get to that point.
They might complain but many still think it's exporting countries that pay the tariffs and not the US consumer. Trump will have them believe that it's the foreign exporters that are making imports more expensive.
Logic and reason are absent.
Maybe we should cut the US loose - no more naval bases, air bases and army bases on EU territory. And we're cutting you out of any discussions we're having with the likes of India, China and Brazil. Come back to us when you grow up and rediscover a respect for democracy and diplomacy.
If you want us to take this logic seriously, lay out for us the realistic and obvious path that Putin could have chosen that would result in both Ukraine and Finland staying out of NATO.
There'll certainly have to an EU led defence pact because even if the Trump cult imploded there's no guarantee that the maga delusion won't be resurrected again later by some other loon.
He has already fired 1000s of people and I suppose at least 50% of them voted for him. He doesn't ask if they are MAGA before firing them.
Given the amount of integration between European countries and the US in the post-WW2 era, declaring them as essentially an enemy power and kicking them out of the continent in short order would be tricky, to say the least. For example, how many high-level intelligence assets must the US have throughout Europe considering how long the alliance has lasted, and how much could they use those assets to really fk with European countries in various ways if those same countries suddenly ordered the dismantling of US bases?
I suppose this would go a fair way to explaining European leaders' reticence to just cut the US loose as Trump makes his foreign policy clear. You can't unpick integration like that in a matter of weeks without inviting further disasters.
The EU shouldn't have anything to do with defense. It's a basket case of an organisation that is far too slow and indecisive to be involved in defence. It's even more to blame for outcome in Ukraine than Trump.
European countries keep delegating responsibility to the EU but it is just too dysfunctional to get anything meaningful done.
The easy bit about NATO was that it was defined primarily as a counterweight to the USSR. Now with Putin and Trump in alignment our defense will be defined by protecting our four freedoms, which included EFTA members.
There's no other choice.
Have you ever heard of self determination? Ukraine, Finland etc have a recognized right to join such defensive organizations if they meet the criteria. The possibility of either of them joining is not grounds for an invasion. You seem to be under some impression that Russia have some right to prevent such things, they don't. Same way as they shouldn't have the right to prevent Ukraine from having such trade agreements which is what got Yanukovych ousted.
Also let's remember Russia is the one that was actively threatening Ukraine, they literally invaded Crimea.
Very frightening times, America who we always looked up to has sided with Russia in opposition to the democratic and liberal values represented by Ukraine.
I hope Europe has the leaders to respond effectively and strongly. Sadly, Ireland will do nothing positive.
Why not answer the actual question posed in the post you're replying to? As opposed to distracting us with easily refuted claims about NATO (ask Serbia or Libya how 'defensive' it is) or child-like dreaming about the 'recognized rights' of nations?
Mod: Warned for uncivil posting
All the more reason to bargain with it now
The principles of MAD mean NATO is not a threat to Russia unless Russia attacks them first. Trying to draw comparisons to smaller countries who aren't nuclear armed simply isn't a realistic or fair comparison. Infact you could view it as child-like dreaming.
No country with nuclear weapons has been invaded or attacked directly by another.
To add to @eightieschewbaccy points.
NATO is only a threat to Putin's plans to invade a country. He had no direct plans on Finland, so when it joined, he even moved troops away from the border. He had plans to invade Ukraine, which is why he invaded before it could join NATO.
Countries are free to join NATO, Russia was even invited for the provisional stages. They signed up with the North Atlantic Cooperation Council with other Eastern European countries, and also NATO's Partnership for Peace program.
If Putin didn't want to absorb other country's territories into Russia none of these issues would exist. Last I checked no one wants to invade nuclear armed Russia. And the security "concerns" by Putin are completely moot because he's trafficking children and stealing resources from the country he is invading - demonstrating it's nothing to do with security and everything to do with conquest and imperialism.
there are three reasons why VZ did not ‘open. talks’ with the Russians - either directly or through Intermediaries , namely TIMING, TIMiNG and TIMING. I assume you noted the way Macron was treated!
Wild thought
Perhaps not attacking their neighbours would show neighbours of Russia not to join defensive alliances?
There is nothing Nermal about likes of Russia destabilising and invading multiple of their neighbours
Oh noooes, the big, bad NATO stopped a literal genocide from taking place. How awful. What a preposterous argument.
Also, Putin could have avoided Finland or Ukraine joining NATO by doing literally nothing. Not invading in 2014 would have been an excellent start.
on the basis that most of the refugees that have come to Ireland since that whole thing started years ago have come due to American influence / interference in certain countries politics/economies. This has come as a very significant cost to Ireland . So maybe Ireland should INVOICE The US for the cost of all of this. And likewise for all of the other EU countries! After all we are all entitled to our ‘pound of flesh’
Hitler claimed he was being encircled by a defensive alliance which is "why he had to invade them".
Putin is using the same crude propaganda and people are actually falling for it.
There are two three possibilities
Those “sympathetic” to Putin’s brainfarts are either:
The arguments made are akin to a rapist asking the victim why does she keep struggling, pure nonsense that needs to be called out.
It's not a question to answer. Russia has no right to prevent them from joining anything. They also have a preexisting history of invading parts of their country. Russia are the aggressor that's the reality. You're justifying it now because Trump is justifying it so you have to follow the Trump Musk line.
The modern idea of self determination ironically enough goes back to Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century. It was a right that held a pretty large role in the foundation of the Irish state. So hardly child like and well established at this stage.
The Saudi. Us/ Russian talks ARE about the normalisation of the relationship between them so as to increase business between them and MAKE MORE MONEY for you know who. The UKr thing probably will be discussed but it is just an irritant to the both of them . There will be a ‘blunt instrument ‘ used such as ‘ the new boundary is the existing front lines - both of you just stop shooting and withdraw both your forces from it and FORGET about NATO . Job done. Now that did not take toooooooooo long - did it.
From the Czech president
"What value would elections have in a country that has been defending itself for 3 years from aggression by a neighboring nuclear power?How can elections be organized when a fifth of the territory is occupied by occupiers and the entire country is under daily shelling?"
It's blindingly obvious, but then again we're living in crazy times with a US president who is regurgitating the propaganda of a dictatorship - to attack a democracy.
And where will the border be - that’s the ELEPHANT in the room
The elections argument is the greatest load of nonsense ever. How can they hold a general election when Kyiv is regularly hit by cruise missiles and most young men in the country are at the front? The ironic thing is that Zelensky would almost certainly win such an election - this is all crazy diversionary stuff from the Trump / MAGA / Putin crowd.
Like when was the last legitimate election Russia had?
Or, indeed, given the levels of Russian/Billionaire interference, gerrymandering and voter suppresion, the USA?
The borders are an issue whenever the war actually is finished. But the security of Ukraine following an agreement is even more important, because with that, those borders won't truly be set.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
