US says Ukraine ceasefire would cement Russian 'conquest', A ceasefire in Ukraine would only serve to "ratify" Russia's territorial gains

[ThunderCat]

I guess the only wise method for a conditional ceasefire is a full withdrawal from all internationally recognized territory from Ukraine.

 

[Oldman1]

All is worth it if human lives can be saved.

Really? So if China were in that situation would you give up a third of your territory in return for human lives being saved? Being landlocked with most of the land bordering the Pacific Ocean closed to you? Would the Chinese people accept it?

 

[beijingwalker]

Really? So if China were in that situation would you give up a third of your territory in return for human lives being saved? Being landlocked with most of the land bordering the Pacific Ocean closed to you? Would the Chinese people accept it?

It's my personal opinion, I believe if China knows it's bound to lose and there's risk of annihilation of the Chinese nation, China would compromise, the world history was about compromises between the nations and peoples, why Japan surrendered to US, cause it knew it just can't win.

 

[Oldman1]

It's my personal opinion, I believe if China knows it's bound to lose and there's risk of annihilation of the Chinese nation, China would compromise, the world history was about compromises between the nations and peoples, why Japan surrendered to US, cause it knew it just can't win.

At least you are being honest. But also the world history has also involved no compromises and Ukraine is not in a situation where Japan was. Nor is their country on the brink of annihilation. You could use Afghanistan during the 1980s war or even 2000s with Taliban losing control of the country and mostly recovering in the mountains as well as in Pakistan. Far from it.

 

[beijingwalker]

At least you are being honest. But also the world history has also involved no compromises and Ukraine is not in a situation where Japan was. Nor is their country on the brink of annihilation. You could use Afghanistan during the 1980s war or even 2000s with Taliban losing control of the country and mostly recovering in the mountains as well as in Pakistan. Far from it.

I personally value human lives more than lands, and I only speak for myself.

 

[Meengla]

so? its ukraine's decision and its land, no other country should have a say if they want to put troops on it.

If only the world works like that.
Cuba was sovereign and had every right to place the Soviet missiles but we saw what happened in the 1962 Cuban Missile crises. Afghanistan was a sovereign country in the 80s and had every right to allow the Soviets inside their country but we saw what Pakistan and the West/Islamic World did. Syria and Lebanon are sovereign countries but Israel doesn't allow Iranian proxies in its neighborhood.

The list can go on and on....

But the global game-changer was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. That one event will be remembered by history as the foundation of the Third World War we very likely to see within next few years. Why? Because whatever global order existed post WW II was so utterly disregarded by that war.

 

[Goritoes]

All is worth it if human lives can be saved.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this..

 

[Meengla]

Really? So if China were in that situation would you give up a third of your territory in return for human lives being saved? Being landlocked with most of the land bordering the Pacific Ocean closed to you? Would the Chinese people accept it?

Eventually, all wars are started and fought by men--politicians--whose over-arching instinct is to stay in power and wars not only bring distractions from the failures of governance but could unify people toward a common cause.
In this vein, as I had said some days ago about this war: It is a war of choice imposed upon Russia by the Neocons sitting in Washington. And while I can see why Russia is threatened about it, I also think had Russia accepted the American hegemony, the Russian losses to 'the West' would be far less than what Russia is facing now and will be facing going forward. The Russian response to NATO is not rooted in self-preservation of Russian people. It is rooted in the ego of powerful men like Putin. Any American hegemony wouldn't be as bad as people here might think.


I don't see how Russia comes out better even if it wins this conflict marginally. It would have to be a comprehensive, overwhelming win over Ukraine to salvage Russia and I don't see that happening unless China supplies military hardware in large quantities.

 

[925boy]

russia could have just, you know, not invaded, just because US/NATO were saying hurtful sayings.

"Ukraine could have just, you know, not tried to join NATO, because Russia was saying hurtful things.."

are you serious or are you trolling? Ukraine was idiotic and threatened its life by integrating into NATO, which its much larger and stronger neighbor Russia had warned it against doing. Now Ukraine must pay the price for loving neo-nazism.

so? its ukraine's decision and its land, no other country should have a say if they want to put troops on it.

that would've been fine for Ukraine to make its own decision on its own land, but under one condition - it does so independently, which Ukraine didnt do, Ukraine accepted and integrated NATO's agenda, plans, maps, miitary equipment, istructors, weapons etc, which destroys Ukraine's innocence, also, Ukraine was abusing its Russian speaking citizens, countries will step up to protect their brothers. you try abusing shiites near Iran and see what happens. so easy for you to talk all this rubbish from your couch huh?

US will make Ukraine fight till the last Ukrainian standing, for US to weaken Russia

true, but the cost to Ukraine for failing in that mission US gave it is that it loses its statehood. high risk, high stakes.

then its mexico's choice.

he's asking you about US's response, not Mexico's choice. nice job avoiding a question you cant answer well.

 

[American College Student]

Eventually, all wars are started and fought by men--politicians--whose over-arching instinct is to stay in power and wars not only bring distractions from the failures of governance but could unify people toward a common cause.
In this vein, as I had said some days ago about this war: It is a war of choice imposed upon Russia by the Neocons sitting in Washington. And while I can see why Russia is threatened about it, I also think had Russia accepted the American hegemony, the Russian losses to 'the West' would be far less than what Russia is facing now and will be facing going forward. The Russian response to NATO is not rooted in self-preservation of Russian people. It is rooted in the ego of powerful men like Putin. Any American hegemony wouldn't be as bad as people here might think.


I don't see how Russia comes out better even if it wins this conflict marginally. It would have to be a comprehensive, overwhelming win over Ukraine to salvage Russia and I don't see that happening unless China supplies military hardware in large quantities.

You are seeing things purely in terms of Russian sphere of influence vs US sphere of influence; this is not the case. One Putin does not have to win the war to win, because Putin is targeting a specific aspect of US policy: namely the disarmament and globalist regimes promoted by the modern west. Two, this also why Biden doesn't care or even want the ukrainians to win either and is instead obsessed with somehow triggering regime change in Russia. If Russia is re-yeltsinified, Biden expects China and Iran to follow suit. Then he imagines that all the countries would sign global treaties effectively disarming their militaries and replacing them with a globalist world defense force. Biden is a true ideologue; he really wants to establish a Star Trek-style world government. Both Non-Western nations and American populists and Western populists fiercely opposes these notions.

Basically Putin wants global proliferation. American and Western populist also want western and global proliferation and rearmament and only disagree with Putin on the size of the Russian Zone vs Size of the western Zone. Biden for his part is a militant global disarmer he wants to disarm all militaries via liberal regime change in America's adversaries: This would be followed by the disarmament of the US itself and disarmament of the common citizenries of the nation. Biden's ultimate goal is a global disarmament regime and the establishment of a global defense force who would be the only ones in the world who would have access to actual weaponry.

 

[Meengla]

You are seeing things purely in terms of Russian sphere of influence vs US sphere of influence; this is not the case. One Putin does not have to win the war to win, because Putin is targeting a specific aspect of US policy: namely the disarmament and globalist regimes promoted by the modern west. Two, this also why Biden doesn't care or even want the ukrainians to win either and is instead obsessed with somehow triggering regime change in Russia. If Russia is re-yeltsinified, Biden expects China and Iran to follow suit. Then he imagines that all the countries would sign global treaties effectively disarming their militaries and replacing them with a globalist world defense force. Biden is a true ideologue; he really wants to establish a Star Trek-style world government. Both Non-Western nations and American populists and Western populists fiercely opposes these notions.

Basically Putin wants global proliferation. American and Western populist also want western and global proliferation and rearmament and only disagree with Putin on the size of the Russian Zone vs Size of the western Zone. Biden for his part is a militant global disarmer he wants to disarm all militaries via liberal regime change in America's adversaries: This would be followed by the disarmament of the US itself and disarmament of the common citizenries of the nation. Biden's ultimate goal is a global disarmament regime and the establishment of a global defense force who would be the only ones in the world who would have access to actual weaponry.

I don't know what to make of your post. I have been generally very skeptical of the theories floating around against 'Soros' or 'Globalists' or 'Bill Gates' ...

But, yes, America would definitely want another Yeltsin in Russia. How many here are old enough to remember how CNN repeated videos of Yeltsin against the coup makers in early 90s?? Yeltsin was doing his charade in front of a very small crowd just like a very small crowd toppled Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad in 2003. But the power of 'fake media'--despite the relatively free internet, the major American media outlets and their allies in the UK, Germany, France etc hold too much power. Until that changes, some policies are likely to continue.

About my note about Russia as you quoted: I think in the long run Russia and Russians would have been better off as yet another American subjugate like Japan or Germany or the UK. It wouldn't be good for the Russian 'ego' but they would be better off. America is a war-mongering country but it is still not the evil which would have totally robbed Russia of its riches. Russians would have been better off accommodating America. I know what I am saying sounds defeatist but I say with good intentions for Russia and its people. Being part of 'pax Americana' is not always bad.

 

[Yaoudelizard]

Russia started it

Lying Jew doing what he does the best again.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Lying Jew doing what he does the best again.

If you're from Israel, know that in the next big war, we will destroy all internal vermin and purify our lands.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

If you're from Israel, know that in the next big war, we will destroy all internal vermin and purify our lands.

Lol chosen people according Qur'an you're not chosen people anymore but a global terrorists killing innocent unarmed men and women in your neighborhood

 

[Beny Karachun]

Lol chosen people according Qur'an you're not chosen people anymore but a global terrorists killing innocent unarmed men and women in your neighborhood

Cope