Poland Stops Providing Ukraine with New Weapons, More Calls in Some EU States to Stop Backing Ukraine

[Shadow Wolf]

In my country LGBT people can get married with each other.
In most of the Slavic world, LGBT can't even get married.

Im referring to the surrogacy bill. Marriage isn't the end all and be all of LGBT rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many wanted
to let Hitler carve out his piece of the globe
to avoid more violence.

Good thing they didn't get their way in the end.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess it's just a matter of how one looks at it. But geography also plays a role in it as well.

And the weather.
See....I can make statements without meaning too.

We've had a mostly adversarial relationship with both China and Russia for quite some time. Through most of that time, we have held the upper hand. We all have substantial nuclear arsenals.

China (with under 10% by weapons count)
doesn't compare to USA & Russia....yet.

Are there risks from China and Russia "being emboldened from seeing that conquest works"?

Are you asking because you see none?
I look at Tibet, the S China Sea, & Taiwan.
Threat.

It seems that what this implies is a test of power and resolve. If they have aspirations of conquest or territorial expansion, then the implication is that the West must respond in such a way so as to demonstrate that we have a force as strong as or stronger than theirs and that we have the resolve to use it if they cross the line.

I imply nothing other than seeking to curb
violent expansion by other countries.
How to do this is the real issue.

It was similar during the Cold War. But there were some failures as well, such as with the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Nicaragua, stalemate in Korea. You win some, you lose some. But in the end, the West probably won a lot more, with the addition of the former Warsaw Pact states joining NATO, along with three former Soviet Republics. We can learn from this as well, but overall, I think the U.S. and Allied geopolitical position is in pretty good shape overall.

Also, in the Pacific Rim, the U.S. has been shoring up its alliances from Australia to Japan. But there are still a number of areas that are outside of our alliance system and might have warmer relations with China or Russia. Even within our own hemisphere. We can't control everything, but our geopolitical position is strong enough at present that the risks you refer to are extremely marginal. Unless Putin is a complete and utter madman, in which case we all probably would be glowing in the dark by now.

It's not a question of who "deserves to win." "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." It's more a question of what's actually happening and whether they can find some sort of peaceful resolution to this conflict.

Noted.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good thing they didn't get their way in the end.

Always tricky to predict in advance,
but this does show that sometimes
it's best to crush one's enemy.

 

[Stevicus]

And the weather.
See....I can make statements without meaning too.

Ah, but there was meaning. There is meaning to everything I say. Just because you can't or won't discern the meaning is your loss.

China (with under 10% by weapons count)
doesn't compare to USA & Russia....yet.

Still counts as substantial in my opinion. Just for the record:

Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?​

1. Russia — 6,257 (1,458 active, 3039 available, 1,760 retired)
2. United States — 5,550 (1,389 active, 2,361 available, 1,800 retired)
3. China — 350 available (actively expanding nuclear arsenal)
4. France — 290 available
5. United Kingdom — 225 available
6. Pakistan — 165 available
7. India — 156 available
8. Israel — 90 available
9. North Korea — 40-50 available (estimated)

Nuclear Weapons by Country 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Are you asking because you see none?
I look at Tibet, the S China Sea, & Taiwan.
Threat.

It's not that I don't see any risks, and I acknowledge that they may pose some threat to U.S. interests (just as they might believe the same about us). But I can't really buy into the caricature of a couple of villainous madman looking at the globe and planning to conquer more countries.

China has been threatening Taiwan since 1949. They haven't invaded yet. Maybe they might still do so in the future. Maybe North Korea might invade South Korea again. We can discuss all kinds of possible scenarios, but you were speaking about "meaningless" statements above.

I imply nothing other than seeking to curb
violent expansion by other countries.
How to do this is the real issue.

Well, we're not going to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution here. That's the problem, since too many people seem to want a "perfect" solution and won't accept anything less.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah, but there was meaning. There is meaning to everything I say. Just because you can't or won't discern the meaning is your loss.

Your posts are just so sophisticated that
they all fly over me head. Must be.

Still counts as substantial in my opinion. Just for the record:

The difference shouldn't be glossed over.

It's not that I don't see any risks, and I acknowledge that they may pose some threat to U.S. interests (just as they might believe the same about us). But I can't really buy into the caricature of a couple of villainous madman looking at the globe and planning to conquer more countries.

You may consider risks without buying into a caricature.

China has been threatening Taiwan since 1949. They haven't invaded yet. Maybe they might still do so in the future.

Duh.

Maybe North Korea might invade South Korea again.

You think that's as likely as China invading Taiwan?

We can discuss all kinds of possible scenarios, but you were speaking about "meaningless" statements above.

It's more productive to consider what's likely
than to dredge up every scenario you can imagine.

Well, we're not going to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution here.

Don't propose one.

 

[Stevicus]

Your posts are just so sophisticated that
they all fly over me head. Must be.

I was merely pointing out that geography is a pertinent consideration. You said it was "meaningless," but I obviously disagree with that.

The difference shouldn't be glossed over.

"Glossed over"? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.

You may consider risks without buying into a caricature.

We can consider calculated risks, yes. But in order to do that, we need an accurate picture of who the "enemy" is, not a caricature or a parody. "Know your enemy," I've heard it said. Sounds like sage wisdom to me.

Duh.

You think that's as likely as China invading Taiwan?

I'm not a geopolitical oddsmaker, so I can't answer that question. Can you?

It's more productive to consider what's likely
than to dredge up every scenario you can imagine.

So, what do you think is likely? Based on what is happening on the ground in Ukraine right now, how do you think this will end up?

Don't propose one.

I'm not. My proposal for the moment would be an immediate cease fire and a beginning of peace negotiations. Neither side would have to give anything up or make any concessions to do that; they just pause the fighting and talk for a while. See what happens. They can always start up fighting later if they want to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was merely pointing out that geography is a pertinent consideration. You said it was "meaningless," but I obviously disagree with that.

We've covered this already.

"Glossed over"? I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.

Perhaps my post was too sophisticated?

We can consider calculated risks, yes. But in order to do that, we need an accurate picture of who the "enemy" is, not a caricature or a parody. "Know your enemy," I've heard it said. Sounds like sage wisdom to me.

I advise avoiding dwelling on caricatures.

I'm not a geopolitical oddsmaker, so I can't answer that question. Can you?

I can.

So, what do you think is likely? Based on what is happening on the ground in Ukraine right now, how do you think this will end up?

I see no clear winner to the war.
But Putin will be weakened.

I'm not. My proposal for the moment would be an immediate cease fire and a beginning of peace negotiations. Neither side would have to give anything up or make any concessions to do that; they just pause the fighting and talk for a while. See what happens. They can always start up fighting later if they want to.

OK.

 

[Stevicus]

We've covered this already.

Well, we really didn't, but that's okay.

Perhaps my post was too sophisticated?

Maybe. Keep in mind that I'm just a simple guy from the wild west. You sophisticated easterners can throw us for a loop sometimes.

I advise avoiding dwelling on caricatures.

I'm not the one dwelling on them.

I can.

I look forward to your sharing your prognostication someday.

I see no clear winner to the war.
But Putin will be weakened.

Well, that's going out on a limb, isn't it?

What about the U.S.? How will this issue play out in the next election?

OK.

 

[Revoltingest]

I look forward to your sharing your prognostication someday.

You asked only if I can.
Not what it is.

 

[Stevicus]

You asked only if I can.
Not what it is.

Fair enough.

Besides, any wild guess is as good as another.

 

[metis]

In Europe speaking of war or of sending weapons makes you lose the elections.

It has happened to every single politician who spoke of war, warfare, etc...

Not in the case of Mussolini, or Hitler, or Franco, ...

 

[Estro Felino]

Not in the case of Mussolini, or Hitler, or Franco, ...

Mussolini was loved, cheered, praised for 18 years.
As soon as he entered the war, Italians hated him and then killed him in Milan, Piazzale Loreto.

So I basically proved my point.

 

[metis]

Mussolini was loved, cheered, praised for 18 years.
As soon as he entered the war, Italians hated him and then killed him in Milan, Piazzale Loreto.

So I basically proved my point.

Actually, you didn't. Here: Benito Mussolini - Fascism, Italy, WW2

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually, you didn't. Here: Benito Mussolini - Fascism, Italy, WW2

I did. Just tell me what I said wrong.

 

[metis]

I did. Just tell me what I said wrong.

Oops, I misread your post, so sorry.

 

[Copernicus]

Poland...which is the protagonist in this EU-Zelensky little misunderstanding, belongs to the Visegrad group.
A group totally devoted to Christian Nationalism.

No, the Visegrad Group is a political alliance consisting of four countries--Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, and Hungary. Poland and Slovakia are strongly Roman Catholic countries, but only slightly half of the population of Hungary is Christian. The overwhelming majority of Czechs are not religious, with more than a quarter of the population declaring themselves atheists. AFAICT, the group has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian nationalism.

See also: The RE-Puzzle of the Visegrád-Group and the Answer of “Collective Memory”

Christian Nationalists....ugh.
Imposing some rather unchristian values upon the unwilling.

I'm not sure why Estro associates the Visegrad Group with Christian nationalism. Perhaps some Christian nationalist group is claiming a connection to the group?

 

[LuisDantas]

What are your thoughts on these developments? Do you think they will have a moderate-to-major impact or only turn out to be relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

I think that many people are grossly underestimating the seriousness of the situation of Ukraine and of its eventual resolution.

If Russia's imperialism isn't firmly confronted now, the message will be spread that imperialism pays off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ukraine has applied to join the EU.

Which won't happen if it gets conquered by Russia and becomes Belarus 2.0

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't the US the first world power?
The US alone can provide Ukrainians warfare.
You could count Europeans out.

It seems the EU have provided over €82 billion euros of aid to the Ukraine while the US has provided €75 billion.

I don't thiink your prejudice against Europe counts