US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Cornuck]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

[UWSaint]

[long post evidencing the Ukrainian desire to be part of western sphere; then moving to Putin's next move...]

Then ....

My endgame? My limits?

Of course I want peace, but a just peace not surrender.

Basic building blocks should be:
- respect for the territorial integrity of the nations involved, as stated by the UN charter and the Geneva convention
- respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine; ie they elect their own government and they have the right to sign treaties with whomever they choose
- war damages paid by Russia for all the destroction they have caused by bombing civilian targets in Ukraine
- Putin and others responsible for the war crimes that have occurred during the war should be handed over to the ICC for trial

But of course, some of the details can be discussed during peace negotiations.

My limits? Ukraine decides when and if they want to initiate negotiations. Until then we should do our utmost to support them.
I personally think that Nato and the EU should consider boots on the grounds, and possibly bombing the Kremlin.
But of course an all out war would be terrible, so everyone tries to avoid that.

But when Russia brought in North Koreans, we should have responded by sending troops to Ukraine as well.
Not doing so was a mistake, imho.

- - -

I will get back to the questions about Vance and Sweden.

As for Ukrainian's majority desire to wish to be part of the western block, you've marshalled some good points and strong evidence. I've never thought a majority of Ukranians (before the war) wished to be part of Russia or a Russian vassal state (e.g., Belarus) (and after the war I'd think they want this less), but the choices offered are "under the west's protection" or "not." They are caught in a pincer of two civilizations; survival requires protection. Protection requires a price. That price is/will be paid with Ukrainian resources.

If I believed Russia has both the interest and capability of not stopping at Ukraine, I'd see this as a greater existential threat. I think the interest exists, but the capability doesn't. And again, the west's defense is NATO, and an invasion of a NATO country is not like an invasion of a non-NATO country.

Which leads me back to conditions of peace. I think you misunderstand my question; perhaps I've asked it poorly, perhaps you are avoiding it. Your 3rd and 4th basic building blocks are a victor's demands. To get there, Europe (and/or USA) must either (1) adopt wartime economies for the principal purpose of arming Ukraine (if there are enough Ukrainians left who can fight), or must (2) put their own armies on the ground. Or more likely, both. This is how you get to demand a victor's ransom -- you win the war. And this is how you win the war. Perhaps the west thought its support to date would win the war, but that's clearly magical thinking now that we have evidence. It *might* have created conditions to stop bleeding, a negotiated peace that "rewards" Russia for its unjust war, but peace nonetheless.

So are you willing to do that -- adopt wartime economies and send armies into the theater? Because if one really thought Russia could recreate the eastern block and wishes to do that, then the fight is now. But while Europe SAYS this is how they read the future, NO country has committed to striking now.

This is the thing with these analogies to Munich Pact. For it to have been the wrong move, the right move was to invade Germany in 1938. Consequently, if your basic demands includes Putin being tried by the ICC, you have to DEFEAT him.

[Topper]

[Topper]

[long post evidencing the Ukrainian desire to be part of western sphere; then moving to Putin's next move...]

Then ....

My endgame? My limits?

Of course I want peace, but a just peace not surrender.

Basic building blocks should be:
- respect for the territorial integrity of the nations involved, as stated by the UN charter and the Geneva convention
- respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine; ie they elect their own government and they have the right to sign treaties with whomever they choose
- war damages paid by Russia for all the destroction they have caused by bombing civilian targets in Ukraine
- Putin and others responsible for the war crimes that have occurred during the war should be handed over to the ICC for trial

But of course, some of the details can be discussed during peace negotiations.

My limits? Ukraine decides when and if they want to initiate negotiations. Until then we should do our utmost to support them.
I personally think that Nato and the EU should consider boots on the grounds, and possibly bombing the Kremlin.
But of course an all out war would be terrible, so everyone tries to avoid that.

But when Russia brought in North Koreans, we should have responded by sending troops to Ukraine as well.
Not doing so was a mistake, imho.

- - -

I will get back to the questions about Vance and Sweden.

As for Ukrainian's majority desire to wish to be part of the western block, you've marshalled some good points and strong evidence. I've never thought a majority of Ukranians (before the war) wished to be part of Russia or a Russian vassal state (e.g., Belarus) (and after the war I'd think they want this less), but the choices offered are "under the west's protection" or "not." They are caught in a pincer of two civilizations; survival requires protection. Protection requires a price. That price is/will be paid with Ukrainian resources.

If I believed Russia has both the interest and capability of not stopping at Ukraine, I'd see this as a greater existential threat. I think the interest exists, but the capability doesn't. And again, the west's defense is NATO, and an invasion of a NATO country is not like an invasion of a non-NATO country.

Which leads me back to conditions of peace. I think you misunderstand my question; perhaps I've asked it poorly, perhaps you are avoiding it. Your 3rd and 4th basic building blocks are a victor's demands. To get there, Europe (and/or USA) must either (1) adopt wartime economies for the principal purpose of arming Ukraine (if there are enough Ukrainians left who can fight), or must (2) put their own armies on the ground. Or more likely, both. This is how you get to demand a victor's ransom -- you win the war. And this is how you win the war. Perhaps the west thought its support to date would win the war, but that's clearly magical thinking now that we have evidence. It *might* have created conditions to stop bleeding, a negotiated peace that "rewards" Russia for its unjust war, but peace nonetheless.

So are you willing to do that -- adopt wartime economies and send armies into the theater? Because if one really thought Russia could recreate the eastern block and wishes to do that, then the fight is now. But while Europe SAYS this is how they read the future, NO country has committed to striking now.

This is the thing with these analogies to Munich Pact. For it to have been the wrong move, the right move was to invade Germany in 1938. Consequently, if your basic demands includes Putin being tried by the ICC, you have to DEFEAT him.

I keep coming back to Nikki Haley's comments over a year ago, the west was too slow to react to the Russian invasion and when it did finally react, it was weak in its efforts.

[UWSaint]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

I thought the question was whether Europe would abandon its alliance with the US because they'd rather open their doors wide to non-western ideologies and suppress speech, conscience, elections, and political parties rather than being lectured about how that's the kind of stuff we used to fight against.

[Cornuck]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

I thought the question was whether Europe would abandon its alliance with the US because they'd rather open their doors wide to non-western ideologies and suppress speech, conscience, elections, and political parties rather than being lectured about how that's the kind of stuff we used to fight against.

Are you talking about Germany's repression of the AfD? Not sure where you are going on this, in reply to my comment about the US warming up to Russia, which truly "suppress[es] speech, conscience, elections, and political parties", and also assassinates opponents on a fairly regular basis - and invaded a sovereign nation.

The way things are going, it really wouldn't surprise me to see a US-Russia alliance happen within the next 2 years. Russia will get its way with Ukraine and will likely visit Belarus next.

[BCExpat]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

I thought the question was whether Europe would abandon its alliance with the US because they'd rather open their doors wide to non-western ideologies and suppress speech, conscience, elections, and political parties rather than being lectured about how that's the kind of stuff we used to fight against.

Are you talking about Germany's repression of the AfD? Not sure where you are going on this, in reply to my comment about the US warming up to Russia, which truly "suppress[es] speech, conscience, elections, and political parties", and also assassinates opponents on a fairly regular basis - and invaded a sovereign nation.

The way things are going, it really wouldn't surprise me to see a US-Russia alliance happen within the next 2 years. Russia will get its way with Ukraine and will likely visit Belarus next.

I support a lot of stuff that Trump has done so far, but he has also doing things that I absolutely don't support. His policies with regards to the Ukraine and siding with Russia are absolutely deplorable.

[5thhorseman]

deplorable.

[BCExpat]

deplorable.

?? What?

[Topper]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

I thought the question was whether Europe would abandon its alliance with the US because they'd rather open their doors wide to non-western ideologies and suppress speech, conscience, elections, and political parties rather than being lectured about how that's the kind of stuff we used to fight against.

Are you talking about Germany's repression of the AfD? Not sure where you are going on this, in reply to my comment about the US warming up to Russia, which truly "suppress[es] speech, conscience, elections, and political parties", and also assassinates opponents on a fairly regular basis - and invaded a sovereign nation.

The way things are going, it really wouldn't surprise me to see a US-Russia alliance happen within the next 2 years. Russia will get its way with Ukraine and will likely visit Belarus next.

Russia already controls Belarus.

[5thhorseman]

deplorable.

?? What?

Are you channeling Hillary? /jk

[Meds]

The question I have is, will Canada be part of the US-Russia alliance, or stick with the UK and Europe?

If it comes to a vote this here Canadian will never vote to go with Europe. Their left wing nuttery has done nothing but weaken Europe.

[Meds]

This is the thing with these analogies to Munich Pact. For it to have been the wrong move, the right move was to invade Germany in 1938. Consequently, if your basic demands includes Putin being tried by the ICC, you have to DEFEAT him.

While that cannot be argued, the rub here is that in 1938 Germany could not have launched enough nuclear weapons (or arms of any kind) to wipe out the globe.

Iirc, Putin has already made the statement that he would use nuclear weapons and wouldn’t care because a world without Russia is a world that doesn’t need to exist.

WMDs are a great deterrent. Putin is not a mad man, I don’t worry that he would let Armageddon off its chain just over the Ukraine and to save face. However, I do believe that he would risk turning our pretty blue marble into ball of fire before he surrendered Russia to the West.

I also think that any US President would do the same.

[Meds]

deplorable.

?? What?

BCE, you have to understand that Chef, 5th, and Per, are hardcore woke leftists. They don’t understand that you can support a part of a political agenda while condemning other parts of it. You are either all left or all right.

While they love to think that they are centrist in their views they can’t fathom that someone else can be centrist while holding a partially different view…..which pretty much defines centrist.

Corn is the only Liberal Loon around here who can still appreciate what a centrist actually is (and even his rationality has been stretched pretty far by Trump).

[Topper]

Trudeau is horribly jealous of the way Trump can rule by executive fiat.