What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
Steve said:
dave said:
Embassy / Consulate. A distinction without a difference.
Actually, it is a substantial difference. The embassy remains. The consulate was used to house the Quds force leadership. The consulate is a support facility that, in theory, serves frequently as a constituent services facility. That was not what it was being used for in Damascus.
Consulates are an extension of a nation's borders and can be used for whatever they like. This is part of observing international law.
dave said:
Consulates are an extension of a nation's borders and can be used for whatever they like. This is part of observing international law.
Wrong.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
He's not saying Russia should win. He's saying Russia WON.
Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?
Because Ukraine is not giving up. They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder. This is not unusual in war. Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that. There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.
The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land. So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now. Have no idea when and how this will end.
If Ukraine won’t give up, and Russia hasn’t achieved what it wants, then in what way has Russia already won?
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
Jaytee said:
nan said:
As reported where? I'm sure there are lots of Russian casualties--but a lot more for Ukraine.
of course you won’t see it on the news you read from Russia. Look, this back and forth madness is futile. You are hell bent on your Russian propaganda and some other people are not so trusting of it. You do you.
I don't read news from Russia. Did you get your information from a Ukrainian source?
Steve said:
dave said:
Consulates are an extension of a nation's borders and can be used for whatever they like. This is part of observing international law.
Wrong.
Vienna Convention, Article I, Section j.
ETA: Nations not signatories to the Vienna Convention are: Bangladesh, India, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Norway and France.
dave said:
Vienna Convention, Article I, Section j.
What do you think of Article 55?
DaveSchmidt said:
dave said:
Vienna Convention, Article I, Section j.
What do you think of Article 55?
Not really sure I know how to read it. The language is simple enough, but how it fits in with the whole, I don't know. I just don't think embassies or consulates should be bombed whether it be the US bombing China's or Israel bombing Iran's.
nan said:
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
Funny - this is what Vlad Media spouts every day! It must be right! I guess that sacrifice to kill all of those Nazis and reclaim the motherland has been an amazing plan. Maybe we all will be vacationing in this paradise soon.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
JD Vance as the voice of reason.
Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?
we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.
that ain't one.
it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.
Ok, fine. Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?
I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.
Ok, stay in your bubble.
sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.
Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed. It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical. It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal.
you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.
(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)
Nan used to be my boxing coach before I fired her. She would send into the ring with my hands tied behind my back. Of course I got thrashed every time. Afterwards, she would tell me, “See? I told you that you couldn’t fight.”
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
He's not saying Russia should win. He's saying Russia WON.
Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?
Because Ukraine is not giving up. They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder. This is not unusual in war. Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that. There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.
The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land. So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now. Have no idea when and how this will end.
If Ukraine won’t give up, and Russia hasn’t achieved what it wants, then in what way has Russia already won?
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
If Russia demilitarized Ukraine, then how is Ukraine able to keep fighting? If Russia already has the territory it wants, why is it still trying to seize more territory? How can "surviving and thriving the sanctions" be part of the reason Russia wen to war if those sanctions didn't exist before it launched its war?
Russia is not thriving. Putin has transformed the economy into a war economy. This keeps people working but isn’t healthy. Eventually it has to end and Russia will have nothing to offer n terms of manufactured goods.
Oil, the basis for any wealth Russia enjoys is increasingly going to see a demand decline as countries work to reduce fossil fuel use.
NATO is larger (Finland, Sweden) than ever and is, for the first time in decades, united in purpose. NATO spending 2% of GDP on arms will bury Russia.
Meanwhile, Russia has only China as a partner of sorts in a lopsided relationship.
The land Russia has captured in this war is ruined and not of any particular strategic value.
To say that Russia is winning anything is as funny as claiming the initial attack on Kyiv was just a diversion.
The only way Putin can claim victory is if the West folds.
Now, Nan and Paul and their ilk are sure we will be better off with a demoralized and weak NATO, but history says otherwise. The weak always get eaten.
nan said:
nohero said:
Preferring that the people of Ukraine and Taiwan just hurry up and die or surrender is not "anti-war".
Typical out of context characterization of what I said. I don't want to see any of these people die--especially while being used in a proxy war planned to bring down Russia/China. That's what these wars are about, not democracy. The sacrifice of the Ukrainian people is a huge tragedy. I'm hoping the people of Taiwan watch and learn and don't let that happen to them.
You want them to fight to the last person against a military that can beat them with one hand tied behind it's back.
Obviously not "out of context" at all.
tjohn said:
Nan used to be my boxing coach before I fired her. She would send into the ring with my hands tied behind my back. Of course I got thrashed every time. Afterwards, she would tell me, “See? I told you that you couldn’t fight.”
and Paul would be constantly applying ice packs and petroleum jelly to your face….
dave said:
Not really sure I know how to read it. The language is simple enough, but how it fits in with the whole, I don't know.
It sounds like you’re not entirely sure, then, that consulates can be used for whatever they like and remain protected under international law.
nohero said:
nan said:
nohero said:
Preferring that the people of Ukraine and Taiwan just hurry up and die or surrender is not "anti-war".
Typical out of context characterization of what I said. I don't want to see any of these people die--especially while being used in a proxy war planned to bring down Russia/China. That's what these wars are about, not democracy. The sacrifice of the Ukrainian people is a huge tragedy. I'm hoping the people of Taiwan watch and learn and don't let that happen to them.
You want them to fight to the last person against a military that can beat them with one hand tied behind it's back.
Obviously not "out of context" at all.
The boldfaced part of nan’s comment made me wonder what the people of Taiwan should let happen to them.
DaveSchmidt said:
dave said:
Not really sure I know how to read it. The language is simple enough, but how it fits in with the whole, I don't know.
It sounds like you’re not entirely sure, then, that consulates can be used for whatever they like and remain protected under international law.
A quick trip to Wikipedia indicates that consulates "remain under the jurisdiction of the host country but are 'inviolable' (the host country's agents may not enter the premises, or detain accredited diplomats)." So as it wasn't Syria's agents entering the consulate I guess it's not in violation?
dave said:
A quick trip to Wikipedia indicates that consulates "remain under the jurisdiction of the host country but are 'inviolable' (the host country's agents may not enter the premises, or detain accredited diplomats)." So as it wasn't Syria's agents entering the consulate I guess it's not in violation?
Nicely done. The facetiousness of the first five words prepared me for the facetiousness of the concluding question.
dave said:
Steve said:
dave said:
Consulates are an extension of a nation's borders and can be used for whatever they like. This is part of observing international law.
Wrong.
Vienna Convention, Article I, Section j.
ETA: Nations not signatories to the Vienna Convention are: Bangladesh, India, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Norway and France.
Please share that language. Also, holding inviolate (if that's the language to which you refer) doesn't mean that it is sovereign territory.
Re what Taiwan can learn --
It matters who wins an election. Trump weakening NATO raised serious doubts as to how seriously NATO would respond to Russian aggression. Trump returning to office would likely fatally undermine NATO, leading to either increased Russian aggression or European re-armament (or both), with more countries deciding to become nuclear powers.
Of course, unlike China and Russia, this isn't actually a lesson Taiwan needs to learn, as it transitioned from autocracy to democracy. Taiwanese know that elections matter and that there is a real difference between the autocracy of Putin's Russia and the democracy of places like the U.S.
Even if Trump does not return, the U.S. is now seen as a far less reliable partner. Yes, elections always matter, but having one of the major U.S. parties renounce its commitments to its allies as the Republican party now does is new. So one thing I'm sure Taiwan has learned is that it can't rely fully on U.S. support. A dramatic renunciation of America's international commitments is always only one election away.
Watching Ukraine beat back Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv I'm sure has also taught Taiwan that it's more likely go get aid if it can show it can first stand on its own. Ukraine was alone at the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Taiwan should assume that a Chinese attack will have to be met by Taiwan more or less alone, and that it won't receive aid unless it can beat back that initial assault.
jamie said:
nan said:
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
Funny - this is what Vlad Media spouts every day! It must be right! I guess that sacrifice to kill all of those Nazis and reclaim the motherland has been an amazing plan. Maybe we all will be vacationing in this paradise soon.
Is the BBC or IMF "Vlad Media?"
Russia to grow faster than all advanced economies says IMF
An influential global body has forecast Russia's economy will grow faster than all of the world's advanced economies, including the US, this year.
tjohn said:
Russia is not thriving. Putin has transformed the economy into a war economy. This keeps people working but isn’t healthy. Eventually it has to end and Russia will have nothing to offer n terms of manufactured goods.
Oil, the basis for any wealth Russia enjoys is increasingly going to see a demand decline as countries work to reduce fossil fuel use.
NATO is larger (Finland, Sweden) than ever and is, for the first time in decades, united in purpose. NATO spending 2% of GDP on arms will bury Russia.
Meanwhile, Russia has only China as a partner of sorts in a lopsided relationship.
The land Russia has captured in this war is ruined and not of any particular strategic value.
To say that Russia is winning anything is as funny as claiming the initial attack on Kyiv was just a diversion.
The only way Putin can claim victory is if the West folds.
Now, Nan and Paul and their ilk are sure we will be better off with a demoralized and weak NATO, but history says otherwise. The weak always get eaten.
See my post above.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
JD Vance as the voice of reason.
Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?
we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.
that ain't one.
it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.
Ok, fine. Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?
I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.
Ok, stay in your bubble.
sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.
Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed. It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical. It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal.
you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.
(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)
This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.
Does not compute. Just read the op ed. You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
JD Vance as the voice of reason.
Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?
we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.
that ain't one.
it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.
Ok, fine. Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?
I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.
Ok, stay in your bubble.
sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.
Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed. It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical. It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal.
you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.
(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)
This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.
Does not compute. Just read the op ed. You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.
This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.
This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
He's not saying Russia should win. He's saying Russia WON.
Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?
Because Ukraine is not giving up. They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder. This is not unusual in war. Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that. There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.
The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land. So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now. Have no idea when and how this will end.
If Ukraine won’t give up, and Russia hasn’t achieved what it wants, then in what way has Russia already won?
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
If Russia demilitarized Ukraine, then how is Ukraine able to keep fighting? If Russia already has the territory it wants, why is it still trying to seize more territory? How can "surviving and thriving the sanctions" be part of the reason Russia wen to war if those sanctions didn't exist before it launched its war?
On how Ukraine is doing on the battlefield - If you are not acting intentionally dense you need to expand your world beyond corporate media. I suggest you watch this video - the summary is below and the references for his statements are listed below the video (99% from mainstream sources):
- Ukrainian forces continue losing territory as arms, ammunition, and manpower shortages continue to grow;
- Ammunition "initiatives" across Europe claiming to have found "millions" of artillery rounds gloss over important factors such as caliber, interoperability, and the condition of rounds held in storage;
- At best, the initiatives will temporarily provide Ukraine with enough ammunition to match previous rates of fire, but other critical shortages will continue to grow meaning the vector sum of the fighting will still favor Russian forces;
- Attempts by the US and Europe to intervene in Ukraine as a means of checking Russian advances may end in even worse defeat for the collective West;
- Attempts by Ukraine to target Russian oil refineries have led Western analysts to falsely conflate fuel export bans with perceived damage and repair efforts;
- Claims that Russia is unable to repair energy production infrastructure are based on the same flawed reasoning that led many Western analysts to assume Russia's military industrial base would be crippled following Western sanctions;
-----------------------------------
Rest of your questions -
The Russian goal is to grind down the western military. It's not about territory. Territory is a byproduct.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
JD Vance as the voice of reason.
Instead of personal attacks, can you read the op ed and tell us where you disagree?
we really need to go over what constitutes a personal attack.
that ain't one.
it was a combination of irony and snark and a cultural reference you may or may not get.
Ok, fine. Are you going to read the actual op ed and tell us why it's wrong or are you just going to continue to change the subject?
I can't begin to express the utter lack of desire I have to read anything written by JD Vance. The chance that it would give me any insight or useful information is basically zero.
Ok, stay in your bubble.
sure. In the future I'll try to emulate your media consumption habits. I'm sure there's nothing bubble-like about them.
Ok, well you can start now by reading the J.D. Vance op ed. It's in the New York Times, which is a drummerboy approved periodical. It's not like I'm starting you off with the Duran or Max Blumenthal.
you know why I won't read the Vance piece? because he has shown himself to be a person of zero integrity. I have literally never heard him talk about a divisive issue with an ounce of good faith. I wouldn't trust him to tell me if it was raining outside or not.
(I have to say "divisive issue, because he's actually working on doing some good for Ohio regarding access to high speed internet. he's one of my Senators. And this shows he actually knows the difference between good and bad.)
This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.
Does not compute. Just read the op ed. You remind me of my son when he was seven and would spend 90 minutes laying on the floor kicking and crying rather than doing his 10 minutes of homework.
This is what I think you said: He has zero integrity but he's doing good
for Ohio and he knows the difference between good and bad and that's
why I won't read his op ed on Ukraine.This is a good illustration of the problem you have reading my posts. You've left out enough words to skew my meaning. Not sure why you do that. Is it deliberate?
You are just proving my point.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
He's not saying Russia should win. He's saying Russia WON.
Then why is Russia still attacking Ukraine?
Because Ukraine is not giving up. They are now mobilizing younger men so they can continue the meat grinder. This is not unusual in war. Biden is up for election and it would not look good for him to lose so they are dragging it out. Some think the Ukraine government is at the point of collapse, but I don't know about that. There have been a lot of shake-ups and people leaving.
The Russians want to demilitarize Ukraine -- this was not about taking territory--so they can just hang out and demilitarize some more while slowly taking more land. So far Zelensky is saying they will only negotiate for pre-Crimea boarders but he's not in a position to demand that so no negotiations for now. Have no idea when and how this will end.
If Ukraine won’t give up, and Russia hasn’t achieved what it wants, then in what way has Russia already won?
Because they survived and thrived the sanctions. Because they ended up with some great territory. Because they demilitarized Ukraine and maybe the West also. The world stands with them (minus Europe, NATO, the EU, some other places.). The future looks good for Russia. Not so great for Ukraine or the west.
If Russia demilitarized Ukraine, then how is Ukraine able to keep fighting? If Russia already has the territory it wants, why is it still trying to seize more territory? How can "surviving and thriving the sanctions" be part of the reason Russia wen to war if those sanctions didn't exist before it launched its war?
On how Ukraine is doing on the battlefield - If you are not acting intentionally dense you need to expand your world beyond corporate media. I suggest you watch this video - the summary is below and the references for his statements are listed below the video (99% from mainstream sources):
- Ukrainian forces continue losing territory as arms, ammunition, and manpower shortages continue to grow;- Ammunition "initiatives" across Europe claiming to have found "millions" of artillery rounds gloss over important factors such as caliber, interoperability, and the condition of rounds held in storage;
- At best, the initiatives will temporarily provide Ukraine with enough ammunition to match previous rates of fire, but other critical shortages will continue to grow meaning the vector sum of the fighting will still favor Russian forces;
- Attempts by the US and Europe to intervene in Ukraine as a means of checking Russian advances may end in even worse defeat for the collective West;
- Attempts by Ukraine to target Russian oil refineries have led Western analysts to falsely conflate fuel export bans with perceived damage and repair efforts;
- Claims that Russia is unable to repair energy production infrastructure are based on the same flawed reasoning that led many Western analysts to assume Russia's military industrial base would be crippled following Western sanctions;
-----------------------------------
Rest of your questions -
The Russian goal is to grind down the western military. It's not about territory. Territory is a byproduct.
Your claim is that Russia has already won. If Russia is attacking Ukraine, then quite clearly Russia is still fighting and so has not "won" yet.
I suppose by your definition, Kennedy has already won the 2024 election and China has already won regarding Taiwan?
--
ETA -- this isn't even a political argument. It's a question of basic definitions of words. To say "has won" is to put a fight in the past tense -- one claiming that an ongoing fight is in the past makes no sense.
PVW said:
Re what Taiwan can learn --
It matters who wins an election. Trump weakening NATO raised serious doubts as to how seriously NATO would respond to Russian aggression. Trump returning to office would likely fatally undermine NATO, leading to either increased Russian aggression or European re-armament (or both), with more countries deciding to become nuclear powers.
Of course, unlike China and Russia, this isn't actually a lesson Taiwan needs to learn, as it transitioned from autocracy to democracy. Taiwanese know that elections matter and that there is a real difference between the autocracy of Putin's Russia and the democracy of places like the U.S.
Even if Trump does not return, the U.S. is now seen as a far less reliable partner. Yes, elections always matter, but having one of the major U.S. parties renounce its commitments to its allies as the Republican party now does is new. So one thing I'm sure Taiwan has learned is that it can't rely fully on U.S. support. A dramatic renunciation of America's international commitments is always only one election away.
Watching Ukraine beat back Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv I'm sure has also taught Taiwan that it's more likely go get aid if it can show it can first stand on its own. Ukraine was alone at the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Taiwan should assume that a Chinese attack will have to be met by Taiwan more or less alone, and that it won't receive aid unless it can beat back that initial assault.
The whole "Siege of Kyiv" was a Ukrainian propaganda fake (along with the "Ghost of Kyiv"). The purpose of this war was regime change in Russia. That's what the proxy war in Taiwan will also be about. Taiwan should assume that if sanctions against China do not work to destabilize/topple the Chinese government, then their land will be destroyed and their people fed into a meat grinder until both run out or we have World war/nuclear war.
Trump says he will weaken NATO, but he said things like that last time and then hired arch neocons Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. I was hopeful that Trump would maybe try to end the Ukraine War, but he's now just saying that we should "lend" them money instead of giving it to him. As if they would ever pay us back. Trump's foreign policy is going to be about the same as Biden's. Many Democrats still think Trump is Putin's puppet, but that's not reality. Lots of brainwashed Democrats afraid Putin is going to be hiding under their beds or in their closets.
There is no democracy in the US - we have an oligarchy, at best.
nan said:
PVW said:
Re what Taiwan can learn --
It matters who wins an election. Trump weakening NATO raised serious doubts as to how seriously NATO would respond to Russian aggression. Trump returning to office would likely fatally undermine NATO, leading to either increased Russian aggression or European re-armament (or both), with more countries deciding to become nuclear powers.
Of course, unlike China and Russia, this isn't actually a lesson Taiwan needs to learn, as it transitioned from autocracy to democracy. Taiwanese know that elections matter and that there is a real difference between the autocracy of Putin's Russia and the democracy of places like the U.S.
Even if Trump does not return, the U.S. is now seen as a far less reliable partner. Yes, elections always matter, but having one of the major U.S. parties renounce its commitments to its allies as the Republican party now does is new. So one thing I'm sure Taiwan has learned is that it can't rely fully on U.S. support. A dramatic renunciation of America's international commitments is always only one election away.
Watching Ukraine beat back Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv I'm sure has also taught Taiwan that it's more likely go get aid if it can show it can first stand on its own. Ukraine was alone at the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. Taiwan should assume that a Chinese attack will have to be met by Taiwan more or less alone, and that it won't receive aid unless it can beat back that initial assault.
The whole "Siege of Kyiv" was a Ukrainian propaganda fake (along with the "Ghost of Kyiv"). The purpose of this war was regime change in Russia.
Russia invaded Ukraine to create regime change in itself? That makes no sense, Nan.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
of course you won’t see it on the news you read from Russia. Look, this back and forth madness is futile. You are hell bent on your Russian propaganda and some other people are not so trusting of it. You do you.