Split Thread: Is Ukraine to blame for Putin's invasion

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Michel H

...
The West seems to like him [Zelenskyy] necause he is a good fighter, but this doesn't prevent his country from being destroyed, an energy crisis in Europe and a food crisis in the world.

It would be easy and painless for him (and his government and parliament) to accept that Crimea is Russian, that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics are independent, and that Ukraine won't join NATO for at least five years.

It is only because Ukraine and Zelenskyy are fighting so hard and successfully that something like this menu is even anywhere near the table.

You seem to be stunningly unaware of what Russia really wants: To subdue Ukraine entirely, with a puppet government, vulnerable everywhere, and VERY much smaller that what you describe there - if Putin doesn't take the opportunity to sack Ukraine whole and end its existence.

Originally Posted by Michel H

There is no absolute guarantee that such concessions would lead Putin to stop his war, but they probably wouldn't hurt, in order to bring peace.

They would stop the war - but FAR further to the West, and with no Ukraine left. With tens of millions subject to a murderous, illiberal dictatorship instead of a republic with hope for freedom and prosperity.
And that is guaranteed.

Why do you hate the Ukrainians with such hot passion?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe that it is also necessary to look at the situation in a practical way, and not necessarily in a 100% "moral" way. There are probably many examples in history where "aggressors" got in a sense rewarded (actually this is mostly how empires got built, the Roman empire for example).

As far as I know, Russia doesn't have any territorial claim with respect to Ukraine, besides Crimea (it is however possible that the Russians want that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics expand the territory they control, possibly to the whole of Donbass, not quite sure about this).

So I wouldn't say this is an endless thing, I don't think the Russians are this idiotic or unprofessional.

When there is a difficult conflict, people get killed, injured, poverty developing..., the right to self-determination (simply "giving the local people what they want") is an important guiding principle, more useful than rivalry between great empires.

If, like Zelensky, you don't even try political concessions, all you get is war.

Politics is indeed the art of the possible. Especially foreign policy during a war.

However your approach has the dual handicap of being impractical and with repellent morality.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Politics is indeed the art of the possible. Especially foreign policy during a war.

However your approach has the dual handicap of being impractical and with repellent morality.

It does have lot in common with the appeasers of the 1930's does'nt it?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Have they repealed they anti-Russian laws yet?

Have they cracked down on right-wing extremist and racist groups?

Have they banned the display of the swastika and other nazi symbols?

You seem to be falling for Putin's propaganda.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by Michel H

If, like Zelensky, you don't even try political concessions, all you get is war.

There are no concessions that would have appeased Putin, just like Hitler. But you already knew that.

The reality is that shills will keep on pretending the victims here are to blame. All the while cheering on the monsters as long as their house isn't the one getting smashed today because they sided with the monster. At the same time not realizing that their supposedly beneficial situation is not because the monster likes them but because they are not in the monsters way yet.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Oystein

It is only because Ukraine and Zelenskyy are fighting so hard and successfully that something like this menu is even anywhere near the table.

You seem to be stunningly unaware of what Russia really wants: To subdue Ukraine entirely, with a puppet government, vulnerable everywhere, and VERY much smaller that what you describe there - if Putin doesn't take the opportunity to sack Ukraine whole and end its existence.


They would stop the war - but FAR further to the West, and with no Ukraine left. With tens of millions subject to a murderous, illiberal dictatorship instead of a republic with hope for freedom and prosperity.
And that is guaranteed.

Why do you hate the Ukrainians with such hot passion?

No, I don't hate Ukrainians.

As a human being, president Zelensky of Ukraine seems (perhaps a little superficially) more attractive to me that the rather scary former KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin. This is perhaps related to the fact that he (Zelensky), like Ronald Reagan, is a former actor.

I just want to point out from time to time the important fact that, if Zelensky made reasonable territorial concessions and accepted neutrality with respect to NATO for a while, perhaps we would have no war (also, this war could probably have been avoided).

Yes, Putin has also demanded demilitarization and "denazification" (sic) of Ukraine, and it is perhaps worthwhile to spend just a little time trying to understand the possible reasons why he made these demands.

Why demilitarization? This could be related to the fact that, since 2014, Ukraine has tried to use military force to retake the Donbass republics, following the local insurgency and declaration of independence.
If Ukraine could make the desirable territorial concessions, the demand for demilitarization would probably no longer be "needed".

Why "denazification"? Beyond the somewhat anecdotal Azov Battalion, Putin believes that the West has seriously attacked Russia through economic sanctions (see opening post) since 2014, and he compares this to the attack by Nazi Germany in 1941. The feeling is "Whatever we do, it will never be good enough, just because we are Russians".

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't hate Ukrainians.

You just wish they'd get ****** to death.

Originally Posted by Michel H

...
I just want to point out from time to time the important fact that, if Zelensky made reasonable territorial concessions and accepted neutrality with respect to NATO for a while, perhaps we would have no war (also, this war could probably have been avoided).

But we do have a war, and surrendering as you propose will NOT, absolutely NOT, result in "reasonable territorial concessions", bit in ruthless grab of totally irresponsible territory and many Ukrainians getting ****** for life, because you absolutely don't hate them.

Originally Posted by Michel H

...Yes, Putin has also demanded demilitarization and "denazification" (sic) of Ukraine, and it is perhaps worthwhile to spend just a little time trying to understand the possible reasons why he made these demands.

Why demilitarization? This could be related to the fact that, since 2014, Ukraine has tried to use military force to retake the Donbass republics, following the local insurgency and declaration of independence.

You mean the fact that Russia in fact attacked Ukraine in 2014.

Originally Posted by Michel H

If Ukraine could make the desirable territorial concessions, the demand for demilitarization would probably no longer be "needed".

Thanks for the quote marks, which admit that demilitarization is not needed at all. In fact, it would be most unreasonable and a prelude to Russia ******* Ukraine even more. See, you so love Ukraine, that you propose everything you can think of to **** them even more.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Why "denazification"? Beyond the somewhat anecdotal Azov Battalion, Putin believes that the West has seriously attacked Russia through economic sanctions (see opening post) since 2014, and he compares this to the attack by Nazi Germany in 1941.

I am sure Putin, unlike you, has not forgotten that this history did not start with sanctions - it started with Russia meddling in Ukraines affairs, and then Russia ******* Ukraine in the ass by robbing Crimea. WHich you totally agree with. Because you don't hate Ukraine. Right.

Originally Posted by Michel H

The feeling is "Whatever we do, it will never be good enough, just because we are Russians".

It is entirely Putin's personal problem if he considers Russians to be natural born losers.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by Oystein

You mean the fact that Russia in fact attacked Ukraine in 2014.

I don't think it's a fair presentation of the 2014 events in Ukraine to say that Ukraine was just attacked by Russia:

Quote:

Following the Euromaidan protests and a revolution resulting in the removal of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, pro-Russian unrest erupted in parts of Ukraine.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)

Also, I note that president Biden is now attacking and insulting his colleague Putin. While understandable, such an approach may not be the best method to stop the war, particularly if Ukraine doesn't care about what the local people think in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Why "denazification"? Beyond the somewhat anecdotal Azov Battalion, Putin believes that the West has seriously attacked Russia through economic sanctions (see opening post) since 2014, and he compares this to the attack by Nazi Germany in 1941. The feeling is "Whatever we do, it will never be good enough, just because we are Russians".

I'll leave the rest of your post to others; we've hashed and rehashed it too many times.

But I want to make sure that you, Putin and everyone else are clear on what happened in WWII. The Soviet Union was not an innocent gentle giant in 1941. It was already a full-fledged participant in WWII because it helped to start the war by invading Poland. Then, after Poland surrendered, the Soviet Union attacked Finland. Then Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. They were sorting out who to invade next when the Soviet Union was attacked by its ally.

If Putin sees parallels in the current situation, it follows that he should refrain from invading other countries and he should perhaps look for less-ambitious allies.

And I doubt very much that if only Poland had simply surrendered, there would have been no war.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Why demilitarization? This could be related to the fact that, since 2014, Ukraine has tried to use military force to retake the Donbass republics, following the local insurgency and declaration of independence.

Well, no. They haven't. After the Minsk II Ukraine made no military effort to retake Donbass.

They engaged in counter-battery artillery fire when the separatists targeted government controlled areas. Ukraine even once used a drone to do that. But there was no effort to use military force to retake Donbass.

We know that, if for no other reason, because the actions of the past month have shown us that any such effort by Ukraine would have succeeded with ease.

Naturally, Russia told any manner of lies about that. Lies which you apparently lapped right up.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think it's a fair presentation of the 2014 events in Ukraine to say that Ukraine was just attacked by Russia:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)

Also, I note that president Biden is now attacking and insulting his colleague Putin. While understandable, such an approach may not be the best method to stop the war, particularly if Ukraine doesn't care about what the local people think in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.

That says it all. Putin is no colleague, he is a madman who needs to be killed. There is no appeasing or babying him.

I got $2000 to put into the "kill Putin fund". I bet if we get it up to 500 million bucks Putin's own people would do him in.


Great thread

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by crescent

Well, no. They haven't. After the Minsk II Ukraine made no military effort to retake Donbass.

They engaged in counter-battery artillery fire when the separatists targeted government controlled areas. Ukraine even once used a drone to do that. But there was no effort to use military force to retake Donbass.

We know that, if for no other reason, because the actions of the past month have shown us that any such effort by Ukraine would have succeeded with ease.

Naturally, Russia told any manner of lies about that. Lies which you apparently lapped right up.

Well said- and accurate,

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I believe that it is also necessary to look at the situation in a practical way, and not necessarily in a 100% "moral" way.

Which I am. Going back to the house analogy, we're in a situation where the house is currently on fire because the guy trying to take my house has said a whole lot of insane things including that because my house was traditionally his I don't get the right to own my house at all. At this point "giving up some of my house now" is just a delaying the inevitable moment where I'm forced into homelessness by a guy who has already stolen part of my house and is expecting me to pay for the utilities he uses in the parts of my house I'm denied the use of.

Quote:

There are probably many examples in history where "aggressors" got in a sense rewarded (actually this is mostly how empires got built, the Roman empire for example).

Funny you chose the Roman Empire instead of a more recent example, like, I dunno, the Soviet Union in WWII?

Quote:

As far as I know, Russia doesn't have any territorial claim with respect to Ukraine, besides Crimea (it is however possible that the Russians want that the Donetsk and Lugansk republics expand the territory they control, possibly to the whole of Donbass, not quite sure about this).

Russia stated at the start of this war that they recognised the separatist republics total territorial claim, not the territory currently held by the separatists.

Quote:

When there is a difficult conflict, people get killed, injured, poverty developing..., the right to self-determination (simply "giving the local people what they want") is an important guiding principle, more useful than rivalry between great empires.

I notice you ignored the rest of my post, so I'll ask this here again. Was Russia wrong for denying the Chechens their independence and instead waging two rather brutal wars in order to forcibly reintegrate the region into Russia?

Originally Posted by Michel H

I just want to point out from time to time the important fact that, if Zelensky made reasonable territorial concessions and accepted neutrality with respect to NATO for a while, perhaps we would have no war (also, this war could probably have been avoided).

"Neutrality" in the case of the Russian demands is actually a demand to be pro-Russian.

Quote:

Yes, Putin has also demanded demilitarization and "denazification" (sic) of Ukraine, and it is perhaps worthwhile to spend just a little time trying to understand the possible reasons why he made these demands.

Why demilitarization? This could be related to the fact that, since 2014, Ukraine has tried to use military force to retake the Donbass republics, following the local insurgency and declaration of independence.
If Ukraine could make the desirable territorial concessions, the demand for demilitarization would probably no longer be "needed".

Or the demand for demilitarisation is solely to make Ukraine weaker for future invasion and integration with Russia. Ukraine is permitted under international law to maintain its territorial integrity.

Besides, those "desirable territorial concessions" include the entirety of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, most of which don't want to become part of a Russian puppet state and given what's happened in Mariupol, won't want to become integrated into Russia.

Quote:

Why "denazification"? Beyond the somewhat anecdotal Azov Battalion, Putin believes that the West has seriously attacked Russia through economic sanctions (see opening post) since 2014, and he compares this to the attack by Nazi Germany in 1941. The feeling is "Whatever we do, it will never be good enough, just because we are Russians".

What do economic sanctions have to do with neo-Nazism?

Besides, if Russia actually cared about neo-Nazism then they'd probably want to start with their own country. But then I don't know what they'd do without the Wagner group to project Russian influence while also providing plausible deniability. Or why aren't they pressuring the DPR to get rid of the Sparta Battalion given their alleged neo-Nazi links?

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think it's a fair presentation of the 2014 events in Ukraine to say that Ukraine was just attacked by Russia:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)

I don't see how this justifies Russia's actions in Crimea or the Donbass.

Quote:

Also, I note that president Biden is now attacking and insulting his colleague Putin. While understandable, such an approach may not be the best method to stop the war, particularly if Ukraine doesn't care about what the local people think in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.

At the last recorded census both Donetsk and Luhansk had an ethnic-Ukrainian majority of the population. Do you really think a majority of the people in those Oblasts want to become Russian?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by crescent

Well, no. They haven't. After the Minsk II Ukraine made no military effort to retake Donbass.

They engaged in counter-battery artillery fire when the separatists targeted government controlled areas. Ukraine even once used a drone to do that. But there was no effort to use military force to retake Donbass.

After the Minsk II agreement, perhaps.

But

Quote:

The agreement failed to stop fighting,[4] and was thus followed with a revised and updated agreement, Minsk II, which was signed on 12 February 2015.

and I had written:

Originally Posted by Michel H

Why demilitarization? This could be related to the fact that, since 2014, Ukraine has tried to use military force to retake the Donbass republics, following the local insurgency and declaration of independence.

It seems that Russia has lied about an alleged very recent offensive by Ukraine to try to retake separatist regions, but Ukraine did try to use force in 2014 and 2015.

While Ukraine was actually apparently not trying to retake Donetsk and Lugansk in January and February of this year, the economic war through sanctions launched by the West had not stopped this year.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Michel H

After the Minsk II agreement, perhaps.

But

and I had written:

It seems that Russia has lied about an alleged very recent offensive by Ukraine to try to retake separatist regions, but Ukraine did try to use force in 2014 and 2015.

While Ukraine was actually apparently not trying to retake Donetsk and Lugansk in January and February of this year, the economic war through sanctions launched by the West had not stopped this year.

Because the reason for those sanctions, the naked dismembering of a neighbor by invading it's territory and then annexing it trough a rigged 'referendum' was still there.

You keep making it out as if those sanctions are in place just to spite Russia.
All Russia needed to do to make them go away is remove their occupying army from the Crimea.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

You keep making it out as if those sanctions are in place just to spite Russia.
All Russia needed to do to make them go away is remove their occupying army from the Crimea.

That's Russophobic victim blaming. How dare you think that Russia should have to do anything when they defended themselves by invading Ukraine in 2014 because some places that mostly speak Russian wanted "independence", and then when they defended themselves this year by invading Ukraine again because the mean mean west put sanctions on the country and the evil Ukraine won't give up lands that are rightfully Russian.

Originally Posted by llwyd

What is this thread doing in this section?

I suppose it is the sceptic thing: if I would open a discussion recommending the idea of eating new born children to control population growth, people here would start an earnest debate about best preparing methods and seasonings...

IIRC when it was split off originally it was in the conspiracy theory section.

[crescent]

I saw this article shared today - it is from 2019, about a year after Zelensky was elected:

Why a minor troop pullback in eastern Ukraine marks the end of President Zelensky’s honeymoon

Quote:

Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s foreign minister, announced on Tuesday that Kiev had finally begun the process of pulling back troops in the eastern town of Zolote.

The small operation had been marketed as a measure to reduce attrition in a war that has already cost 13,000 lives. But the withdrawal has been marred in controversy ever since it was agreed and delayed for several weeks after it was opposed by a group of armed veterans.

Essentially, Zelensky pulled Ukrainian troops back from a town because the town was within range of separatist snipers. Zelensly did this both to reduce risk to his soldiers but also as a means of de-escalation - getting his troops out of range reduced the chances that Ukriane might find it necessary to use its own weapons to suppress or counter that sniper fire.

And this infuriated Azov and many other veterans.

So Zelensky was trying to de-escalate things, and pushing pretty hard against Azov in the process. And his actions were carried out, he didn't let himself get steamrolled by Azov.

And we see now, three years later, what that effort at de-escalation accomplished - nothing. No amount of de-escalation would ever have been enough for Putin.

And I say this in compliment to Zelensky - he's the best President for Ukraine in the current situation. He tried to work with Russia, he tried to de-escalate, he tried to meet one-on-one with Putin, he pushed hard against the far-right elements in his nation and its military. And that shows that Russia was going to invade regardless. Zelenksy's efforts to find a middle path and Russia's response to that effort show the Russian lies for what they are.

The worst that one can say about Zelensky is that Putin didn't take him seriously because he was a comedic actor. Putin would have been well advised to chat with Gorbachav about a certain American actor who once made movies with a chimpanzee named Bonzo. All politicians are actors to some extent, which means that some actors can be very good at politics.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The map of who voted for Zelensky is very interesting indeed.

Poroshenko was supposed to be the western stooge and he only won in Lviv and among emigres.

The further east the more likely people voted for Zelensky.

Putin basically was trying to overthrow the very person the Russian speakers wanted as president.

Speaking Russian doesn't mean supporting Putin.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Speaking Russian doesn't mean supporting Putin.

Yes. That's what he's saying.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think it's a fair presentation of the 2014 events in Ukraine to say that Ukraine was just attacked by Russia:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)

Also, I note that president Biden is now attacking and insulting his colleague Putin. While understandable, such an approach may not be the best method to stop the war, particularly if Ukraine doesn't care about what the local people think in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.

LOL!!!

"colleague"????

Putin has lost all rights to such terms of endearment. He is now a war criminal and a dictator. Nothing more.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by crescent

I saw this article shared today - it is from 2019, about a year after Zelensky was elected:

Why a minor troop pullback in eastern Ukraine marks the end of President Zelensky’s honeymoon



Essentially, Zelensky pulled Ukrainian troops back from a town because the town was within range of separatist snipers. Zelensly did this both to reduce risk to his soldiers but also as a means of de-escalation - getting his troops out of range reduced the chances that Ukriane might find it necessary to use its own weapons to suppress or counter that sniper fire.

And this infuriated Azov and many other veterans.

Unfortunately, this step was not what the Russians were asking: they wanted (if I understand correctly) that the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics be given permanent self-governance status within Ukraine, but this step was never implemented by the parliament of Ukraine (Rada), even though it was part of the Minsk II agreement.

Now, Zelensky seems to have taken the very radical approach of ruling out any territorial concession (https://www.rt.com/russia/552345-ukr...to-compromise/).

It is possible that his Western supporters should actually stop providing weapons to Ukraine until Ukraine makes the necessary reasonable concessions. Perhaps this would make him change his mind.

[pzkpfw]

How is that "radical"?

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

How is that "radical"?

Such a position is radical because it seems to ignore what the local people want.

In addition, when your country is slowly being destroyed, it seems to me that a good president should take the known steps to stop this process, and not try to become an kind of idiotic Hollywood movie star.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

How is that "radical"?

Because Ukraine is supposed to do what Russia wants not what it wants as an independent country.

[Trebuchet]

Hey, Michel! Was Belgium to blame for being invaded by Germany in 1914 and 1940? Because, you know, they should have just ceded any disputed territory and opened the way for the Germans to go into France? Enquiring minds want to know!

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Unfortunately, this step was not what the Russians were asking: they wanted (if I understand correctly) that the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics be given permanent self-governance status within Ukraine, but this step was never implemented by the parliament of Ukraine (Rada), even though it was part of the Minsk II agreement.

Now, Zelensky seems to have taken the very radical approach of ruling out any territorial concession (https://www.rt.com/russia/552345-ukr...to-compromise/).

It is possible that his Western supporters should actually stop providing weapons to Ukraine until Ukraine makes the necessary reasonable concessions. Perhaps this would make him change his mind.

We don't really know if that's what the people want. By the time the referendums were held, many people had moved from separatist held areas into government held areas - and then prevented by the separatists from voting in the referendums. Newly arrived people from Russia, however, were allowed to vote.

And, as others have said, refusing to cede territory to an invader is not radical. Invading your neighbor because he's a Jewish Nazi, claiming it's a "liberation" and then bombing cities to rubble when they make it known that they don't want to be liberated - that's radical.

And you know all that. I don't know why I bother.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Michel H

Such a position is radical because it seems to ignore what the local people want.

In addition, when your country is slowly being destroyed, it seems to me that a good president should take the known steps to stop this process, and not try to become an kind of idiotic Hollywood movie star.

Drivel. Zelensky was protecting the sovereignty of his nation and its people. Putin is attempting to reconstruct the Soviet empire, with the help of willing accomplices such as yourself.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Hey, Michel! Was Belgium to blame for being invaded by Germany in 1914 and 1940? Because, you know, they should have just ceded any disputed territory and opened the way for the Germans to go into France? Enquiring minds want to know!

Actually.
If Belgium had not decided to fight the Germans in 1914, they most likely would have gained about two weeks on their actual timeline.
I think that with the Germans arriving two weeks earlier at the French borders, the French would not have been able to do the Battle of the Marne and the 'Race to the Sea'. The BEF would have arrived after the arrival of the Germans, instead of a week before, so would not have been able to help there (and mind, that the UK in actuality only got involved because Belgium decided to fight).
I don't know if France would have collapsed as in 1940, but they sure would not have been able to save Paris.

With a German victory in the West, a whole lot of casualties on the Western, but also on the eastern front would have been avoided.
In this case I would not really see a rise of Hitler and thus also no Second Worldwar as we know it.

And all this because of Belgiums decision to fight the German armies in 1914.
With Belgium thus responsible for milions upon milions of casualties, I think it no more than fair, that we can no longer accept such a criminal country in our midst.
I propose that France gets the Walloon part and the Netherlands the Flemish one. It stands to reason that no one can possibly be opposed to such a plan. Think of the children of the furture, who might be threatened by the proven actions of this criminal country Belgium.

Edit for the mods.
This is completely on topic, to show the stupidity of blaming Ukraine for the Russian actions.

[The Great Zaganza]

Belgium is the best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtbFvPt_ylc

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by erwinl

And all this because of Belgiums decision to fight the German armies in 1914.
With Belgium thus responsible for milions upon milions of casualties, I think it no more than fair, that we can no longer accept such a criminal country in our midst.
I propose that France gets the Walloon part and the Netherlands the Flemish one. It stands to reason that no one can possibly be opposed to such a plan. Think of the children of the furture, who might be threatened by the proven actions of this criminal country Belgium.

Edit for the mods.
This is completely on topic, to show the stupidity of blaming Ukraine for the Russian actions.

They're responsible for the millions of dead in WWI and allowing the atrocities of the Congo to happen? That settles it, Belgium, the fake nation it is, no longer deserves to exist.

[malbui]

Originally Posted by erwinl

With Belgium thus responsible for milions upon milions of casualties, I think it no more than fair, that we can no longer accept such a criminal country in our midst.
I propose that France gets the Walloon part and the Netherlands the Flemish one. It stands to reason that no one can possibly be opposed to such a plan. Think of the children of the furture, who might be threatened by the proven actions of this criminal country Belgium.

I’m completely in favour of this on the condition that we can agree what to do about Brussels. I’m not sure any kind of power-sharing in respect of the many lovely waffle places will be feasible in the long term.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by malbui

I’m completely in favour of this on the condition that we can agree what to do about Brussels. I’m not sure any kind of power-sharing in respect of the many lovely waffle places will be feasible in the long term.

I propose, we do what the Netherlands and Prussia did in regards to Moresnet, back in the 1816's.
Strip away their Belgian citizenship and make them stateless, to be jointly governed by France and the Netherlands.
It should make the Brussels waffles cheaper as well, as the Brussels inhabitants won't have to pay taxes anymore.
Of course they can't ever leave the city, them being stateless and such, but that is a small price to pay.

[Jack by the hedge]

Could we just offer it to Russia in exchange for the bits of Ukraine it's trying to grab?

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Could we just offer it to Russia in exchange for the bits of Ukraine it's trying to grab?

I'd rather not have Russia as a direct neighbor, thank you very much.

Besides. Do you have any idea what that would do to the price, or even the availability, of the Brussels Waffles?
No! Better make the Brussels inhabitants stateless and thus lower the waffle's price!

[Vixen]

Belgium was neutral in WWII. How did that work out for Belgium?

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Belgium was neutral in WWII. How did that work out for Belgium?

So was Sweden, how did it work out for them?

[malbui]

Originally Posted by erwinl

I propose, we do what the Netherlands and Prussia did in regards to Moresnet, back in the 1816's.
Strip away their Belgian citizenship and make them stateless, to be jointly governed by France and the Netherlands.
It should make the Brussels waffles cheaper as well, as the Brussels inhabitants won't have to pay taxes anymore.
Of course they can't ever leave the city, them being stateless and such, but that is a small price to pay.

Well, that all sounds good to me. I'll sign the paperwork and get it sent over to you.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

How could Nordstream 2 have been a provocation of Russia when Russia invaded Ukraine before it was destroyed?

It is really crazy that some people are up in arms even if they assume the US did it (I am agnostic on that). It is Russia who started this war. Russia is to blame ultimately regardless of who blew up the pipeline.

The U.S. had attacked Nord Stream 2 before the September 2022 sabotage and explosions:

Quote:

In June 2017, new US sanctions against Russia targeting the pipeline were passed by a 98-2 majority in the United States Senate[65][66][67] due to concerns that President Trump would ease existing sanctions on Russia.[68] The sanctions were sharply criticized by Germany, France, Austria and the European Commission who stated that the United States was threatening Europe's energy supplies.[69] ... In December 2019, with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans, the US Congress imposed sanctions on any firm aiding in the building of the pipeline as part of the annual defense policy bill.[80][81][82][25][83]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_2)

This is part of a pattern of violent persecution of Russia by the West (especially by the U.S.).

These constant attacks probably help explain the current war in Ukraine. At some point, Russia decides it has seen enough of the hysterical hostility, and decides to fight back, with some support within the Russian public.

However, I am not saying Putin was right to invade in February 2022, I still believe this was a mistake.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Michel H

However, I am not saying Putin was right to invade in February 2022, I still believe this was a mistake.

calling it "a mistake" is the very far from condemning it.
Murdering thousands and thousands of civilians in an invasion is not the "oopsie" you think it is.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

calling it "a mistake" is the very far from condemning it.
Murdering thousands and thousands of civilians in an invasion is not the "oopsie" you think it is.

I don't think the solution of the current crisis is to constantly bash Russia.

It's more complicated, more complex than that.

Constantly attacking Russia (UK-US style) doesn't seem to be helping the Ukrainians much, and may lead to a nuclear war. The human rights situation in Russia and Belarus seems also to be worsening.