Politics

Void · 2025-03-23 20:28:03

Robert,

Lincons primary job was to keep the republic safe, against potential or real enemies.

Slavery at that time was becoming viewed by many as a bad thing but it was mostly accepted around the world. Black Africans made huge money selling other Africans into slavery. If you were male and were sold into Muslim countries, you would most likely be castrated.

If Lincon protected slavery, it was a glass half full, as significant parts of the republic had prohibitions on slavery. The primary task was to keep the republic safe.

And despite propaganda, it was a fight between the federal government and rebellious regions of the country. In fact, they did not have a right to seize federal property such as military bases.

It was not a war of the north against the south. Some northern people went to the south, called wood ticks, I believe, and the reverse also occurred.

Many people of the North disliked slavery, because it was an unfair labor competition. It would allow rich plantation owners, to get all the good land, leaving nothing for family farmers. Both in Europe and the USA there were people who disliked slavery for various reasons.

In the south, if there was back-breaking labor to do, the plantation owners would hire "White Trash" to do it as they did not want to damage their property, slaves. The poor white person damaging their back or something else was welcome to go away and die in pain.

In part because the British and French were teetering in the valley of decision, the federal government decided to seize the plantation owner's slaves as property, war booty. I believe it was a legal maneuver. Once the federal government had claimed ownership, it could free them at an appropriate time. But that did not indicate that they intended to make them citizens. I guess they became citizens later because it was impractical to do anything else with them.

Brazil for instance kept their slaves longer, and parts of Africa are rumored to still have some slavery. And of course, we even catch people abusing other people like that in our country today. Psychos, and sometimes people imported from other parts of the world do that.

For those thinking they are to have reparations, I would suggest they go to sub-Saharan Africa, first and demand them. Then if they still live they can go to the Arabs and demand repatriations.

They don't disserve them anyway. Freedom was a gift granted by our government, after it seized their ancestors as property. War booty.

Ending Pending

As it happens the Russians could be useful to us at this point, and maybe they will be or not. We will find out. We can certainly be useful to them if they want to play it that way.

Life is down and dirty sometimes, it cannot be helped.

What the Russians are objecting to is reasonable, in Ukraine. During the Cuban missile crisis, they put missiles into Cuba, because we had missiles in Turkey threatening them. Our people generally don't know it, but the missiles in Cuba were removed on the condition that we remove the ones in Turkey.

The Russians were promised that Nato would not expand into Eastern Europe but expand it did.
Crimea was an essential naval base for them. It had aways belonged to Russia but was awarded to Ukraine before the breakup of Soviet Union. Russia was willing to rent bases from Ukraine but then the west did a coup to place a government in hostile to Russia.

As far as the other regions they have occupied, they were dominantly Russian in culture and the Ukrainians were oppressing them very badly, so Russia did what it has done.

Europe is not Europe. It is just part of Europe. Just because there is a Europe, the EU does not get to claim all parts of it as a possession. As for NATO, it is not intended at all for expanding the EU into the rest of Europe. Article 5 as I understand it is protective in nature, where a foreign power might attack a member. There is no license to kick a bear in the ass and lead it to war to the USA. We rightfully refuse that obligation.

Ending Pending

Knowing history and how Italy, Germany, and even for a time Russia could seek to reorder Europe and the world, I am very tempted to suppose that some actors in Europe and China, might like to see the USA and Russian wreck each other. A very dangerous gamble on their part, but some dummies might think they could make it work. Then possibly China is in Siberia, and North America is wrecked. Such a China might roll over North America under those conditions.

Better thinking is needed. Not simple minded thinking.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-27 17:31:04)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-23 23:08:14

kbd512 wrote:

COVID was a preview of things to come.

Yes, China would like to do that to the world permanently.

However, allowing Russia to conquer the world is not an option either. Pandering to Putin is inviting World War 3. Not exaggerating. Look at what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed a non-aggression pact with Adolf Hitler. Europe let Nazi Germany take Czechoslovakia. What the Nazis did was use the weapons of the Czechs, use the military industry to manufacture more weapons, force-conscripted Czech citizens into the Nazi army, then invaded Poland. In 2022, prior to the full-scale invasion of February 24, 2022, Russian force-conscripted Ukrainian citizens in the occupied areas. They were given minimal weapons, no armour, and sent to attack the Ukrainian army. The untrained civilians fighting for Russia were treated as expendable meat, and were killed. As far as Russia was concerned, this was Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians. Russia wants to exterminate Ukrainians, genocide. Once they capture all of Ukraine, they will force-conscript all males age 15-65 who don't have a Russian passport, and those who do have a Russian passport but work in a job Russia does not consider vital infrastructure. Those are the people the force-conscripted before, but this time across all Ukraine. Then they'll invade Poland, and and the Baltic States (Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia). They'll also invade and annex Moldova. They'll take a strip of Romania between Moldova and the Carpathian mountains. They'll take Finland. And they want East Germany including Berlin.

All those countries other than Ukraine and Moldova are member of NATO. This means all-out war between Russia and NATO. Russia has nukes, but so does UK and France. Invasion of a NATO country means NATO troops will invade Moscow. NATO won't use a nuke first, but if Russia uses a nuke on any NATO country, expect retaliation. Russian pundits on a Russian TV political show hosted by Soloviov have already called for carpet bombing UK with nukes. UK has 4 nuclear submarines armed with Trident missiles. The submarines and the nuclear warheads are designed and built in UK. Those submarines have a total of 120 warheads, and UK has ensured all are 100% on station right now. Those submarines have orders that if UK is wiped out, to retaliate against Russia with everything they have. UK has a total of 225 nuclear warheads. France also has nukes. The way we prevent WW3 is to ensure Russia loses in Ukraine.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-24 01:04:07

Void wrote:

The Russians were promised that Nato would not expand into Eastern Europe but expand it did.

No one ever gave any such promise. That is Russian propaganda. When the Germanys reunited, an American negotiator promised no nuclear weapons on East German soil, and no new NATO bases on East German soil. That was all. Just East Germany. There never was any promise that NATO would not expand.

And NATO didn't "expand". That assumes east European countries do not have free will. They're not vassal states, they're independent with free will. They asked NATO to join because they needed protection from Russia.

Void wrote:

Crimea was an essential naval base for them. It had aways belonged to Russia but was awarded to Ukraine before the breakup of Soviet Union.

Not true. Russia under Catherine II (Catherine The Great) invaded Ukraine in 1764–1781, annexed East Ukraine. In 1853-1856 Russia invaded Crimea. At that time, Crimea was a client state of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Russia took it from the Ottomans, built naval bases. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. But Europe said no more wars. That means no one can take any land from any European country. Borders are inviolate. Ukraine kept Crimea when they gained independence in 1991. Crimea did not "always" belong to Russia. It did briefly, but most importantly they can't take it by military force.

Void wrote:

As far as the other regions they have occupied, they were dominantly Russian in culture and the Ukrainians were oppressing them very badly, so Russia did what it has done.

The southwestern states of the US are Latin in culture, and used to belong to Mexico. Does that mean they rightfully belong to Mexico? The northern half of the state of Maine is Canadian in culture, and used to belong to Canada. Does that mean Canada can take it? In the 1800 the colony of British Columbia had a dispute with Russia. BC claimed the pacific coast including what is now the Alaska panhandle. Rather than going to war, they thought they had a deal that Russia would sell it to BC. But in 1867, just months after Canada became a country, Russia sold Alaska to USA. BC was irate! Russia cannot sell something that was not theirs! BC was not part of Canada at that time, it was still a colony of Britain, so Britain negotiated the border with the US. Britain didn't even dispute the coast, they only disputed how far inland. Britain claimed a certain distance, the US claimed deeper, they compromised half way. BC was irate that they did this! BC considered the entire panhandle to be theirs. And Britain didn't even try to get it back! So BC decided to join Canada, so Britain can never negotiate anything on their behalf again. Does this mean the Alaska panhandle is rightfully Canadian?

Void wrote:

Europe is not Europe. It is just part of Europe. Just because there is a Europe, the EU does not get to claim all parts of it as a possession. As for NATO, it is not intended at all for expanding the EU into the rest of Europe. Article 5 as I understand it is protective in nature, where a foreign power might attack a member. There is no license to kick a bear in the ass and lead it to war to the USA. We rightfully refuse that obligation.

This again sounds Russian. Europe has thousands of years of war. Since the invention of writing, and who knows what happened before. One country takes land from it's neighbour. That neighbour gains strength, takes the land back. Borders constantly changed, back and forth. With every war, many people died. World War 1 was the first industrial war, millions died. Estimates of dead was 11 million, but with records from Russia released by Boris Yeltsin while he was President, and modern archaeology, the estimate has risen to 40 million, including both military and civilian deaths on both sides. Leaders after WW1 said this must never happen again, so created the League of Nations. It failed. WW2 resulted in more deaths. The estimate was 55 million dead, but modern records indicate it's something higher. That can't be allowed to happen again. So the United Nations was created. The UN was supposed to prevent war by engaging all the militaries of the world in a united response to any aggressor. That hasn't worked, because aggressors themselves veto UN response. NATO is required to protect Europe. Europe has a particular history, and war must stop!!! It can't stop as long as anyone attempts to use military force to take land. Europe would like to apply that rule to the whole world, but can't. So they focus on their own backyard.

Ukraine is not, and never has been part of Russia. Russia occupied it by military force. While Russia occupied it, Russia used various ways to abuse the locals, steal their resources, steal their money, and try to wipe them out. The same for all of eastern Europe. They cannot allow Russia to rule them ever again. With Ukraine, the Russian army stole so much food they created an artificial famine that killed millions of people: Holodomor 1932/'33. Official numbers were 10 million dead. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, estimates increased to 30 million dead. Now Russia is trying to claim "only" 7 million died. Only. As if that makes it alright. In Estonia, Russia shipped citizens to gulags in Siberia. From the beginning of World War 2 until breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, population of Estonians in Estonia dropped in half. Russia tried to replace them with Russians. For these people, rule by Russia is just not an option. For them, the only options are win or die. And that's not being stubborn, because they know if Russia wins, Russia will kill them.

The United States has tried to stay out of European wars before. World War 1 was 1914-1919, but the US didn't join until 1917. The Lusitania was a passenger ocean liner, before aircraft were able to cross an ocean. It was sunk by a German submarine. Most of the passengers were UK or Canadian, but 148 were American, including some very prominent citizens. Then Germany sent a telegram to Mexico encouraging them to invade the US. Mexico didn't even respond, just sent a diplomat with a copy of the telegram to the US. The US had already intercepted it. When the US learned Germany tried this, the US joined the war. World War 2 was 1939-1945, but the US didn't join until 1942. Not until after Pearl Harbor. Germany developed V2 rockets to attack London, but they had plans for a 2 stage ICBM to attack the US. Nazi Germans did have a program to develop a nuclear bomb, but the British RAF bombed the German research facility flat so many times they couldn't make significant progress.

Look, I agree with staying out of Middle East wars. But Europe is critical to the US, and the US always gets dragged into every major European war. If ballistic missiles with strategic nuclear warheads start flying, don't think the US can stay out of it. Wind does not respect national borders; radiation blown on the wind will affect you.

kbd512 · 2025-03-24 09:04:06

RobertDyck,

No one ever gave any such promise. That is Russian propaganda. When the Germanys reunited, an American negotiator promised no nuclear weapons on East German soil, and no new NATO bases on East German soil. That was all. Just East Germany. There never was any promise that NATO would not expand.

The Russians were given a promise of no eastward expansion of NATO, and I posted the link to all the relevant documentation, in this very thread, detailing the statements and notes made by all relevant western global leaders at the time the Soviet Union was dissolved. You are the one repeating propaganda here.

Calliban · 2025-03-24 09:33:04

There needs to be a negotiated peace in Ukraine. The country's infrastructure and demographics are shattered. There is no hope whatever for Ukraine to reclaim conquered territories by force. They just don't have the manpower to do it. If fighting continues, the Russians will ultimately crush them through weight of numbers. But it will cost them dearly in lives, and their own demographics point to an ageing and shrinking population. So there is certainly hope for a negotiated peace that will save Ukraine as a nation. Unfortunately, Zelensky isn't interested. That was made abundantly clear to the whole world during his visit to the white house. Then again, it isn't his people that are dying every day in this war. His people are in Isreal. So I wonder how much he really cares about Ukrainian bodies?

Russia's declining population makes their imperialism, whatever its motives, a short term problem. Very soon, their manpower resources will be insufficient to launch pre-emptive wars. The Ukraine war is likely the last such war they will be capable of launching. The idea that Russia is looking to do what Nazi Germany did in Eastern Europe doesn't hold much credibility. This is a country that has to rely on North Korean conscripts and Iranian moped drones. They are technologically backward and have always relied on strength of numbers to win conflicts. As their population shrinks, even that historical advantage is going away.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-03-24 09:46:47)

kbd512 · 2025-03-24 09:45:29

There's a lot of tough talk from European leadership. That is fine, so long as it results in concrete military action. If it does not, then Ukraine's negotiating position with Russia will steadily worsen to the point that Russia won't negotiate a settlement with Ukraine. The nation of Ukraine, as Calliban already noted, is a destroyed remnant of its former self. It will take decades to rebuild what the fighting destroyed. The longer this insanity goes on, the fewer Ukrainians will remain in Ukraine. I don't want any Russians in Ukraine, but that ship has sailed. NATO had every opportunity to cut this nonsense out, but feckless leadership on our part led to Ukraine's demise as a functional nation-state.

I do not agree with any part of what Russia has done to Ukraine, but that won't bring all those dead young men back to life, nor will it rebuild all the destroyed infrastructure. It's time to stop the killing while there's still some young Ukrainian men and women left. It was a mistake to think that Russia would let this go, and an even greater mistake to renege on our promises when the Cold War ended. We had a golden opportunity to integrate Russia into Europe, and we blew it. I'm sick of ideologically motivated old men sacrificing the lives of young men and women for their broken dreams.

The Soviet Union is gone. Much of Ukraine is now gone. It's never coming back. The old men need to accept that and find something more productive to do with their time.

Void · 2025-03-24 09:47:25

Since kdb512 covered one item, I will deal with some others.

NATO basically took Kosovo from Serbia, breaking the "Never change borders" notion. And it was for very similar reasons. Just as the Russians claim that the west Ukrainians were persecuting the Eastern people, it was claimed that the Serbians were persecuting the Kosovars, if that is what they are called.

As for Alaska, that is sort of an outside item.

I was aware that the British had favored the USA in arbitration. I certainly cannot know the motives of the arbitrators, as they may likely be dead and from another era, and continent.

I speculate that they were looking at two future possibilities.
1) Canada is attacked by the USA. In that case they might be in a bad spot, so I am guessing they wanted to avoid that. Keeping the Canadian claim would not have helped to protect Canada.
2) They feared a future conflict with a Eurasian entity. Strategically, keeping only a "Peek-A-Boo" coast on the pacific would make it likely that the Americans would become involved on the side of Canada/British. In north BC, the mountains, would be protective of a Canada/British position, and a Eurasian enemy would almost have to wade through the Americans to get there. The case where America would be allied with a Eurasian invader is very unlikely, I think. A case where America stood neutral while a Eurasian invader breached the continent, is also unlikely, but if it did happen, as I have said, the forces of Canada/British would only have to protect a relatively small but useful position on the Pacific coastline.

Should I feel bad as an America that the British favored us? I don't think I will. The idea anyway was to keep western Canada subordinated to the hard position of East Canada. The British got what they wanted, and it may even have been the desire of the high powers in East Canada. That I cannot know.

The whole issue of Ukraine stinks because Ukraine is at a crossroad between worlds.

The Green Throne is West Europe. The Orange Throne has Russia at its core. The Purple Throne has Turkey sort of at its core. These are all large power that ebb and flow at each other. If the conflict in Ukraine were simply a family feud, we could let them settle it themselves. But these power centers all have an interest. A massive "Glorius" war will not end in anything except piles of rotting flesh, and terrible lives and ending of lives. And it is even harder for America to see why it should want to be involved in such a thing. This is not the time of the turning of the wheel of time for that. The sensible thing to do is to try to put out the fire, and indeed, good fences that each power may be satisfied with.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-24 10:06:36)

Calliban · 2025-03-25 09:50:53

As America embraces a new age of freedom, the Online Safety Act, passed by the UK's communist, Labour government, pushes the UK further down the path of censorship and oppression.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bri … licing-law

Leftwing movements always end up being censorous and totalitarian. This is because they are full of people who are dogedly attached to ideologies. But the ideas and concepts that they hold dear, tend not to do well on their own merits in the real world. They depend upon people not asking difficult questions and not talking about failures and obvious contradictions. So intellectual oppression becomes more and more necessary as leftwing social projects unfold.

It is this more than anything else, that turned me against leftwing politics in the UK before I was even out of my teens. I don't care how important pet political projects are to the people that believe in them. If a movement has to imprison or murder people for openly criticising bad ideas, then it clearly is not a force for good in any way. Leftwing people always seem to be bad people as well. Emotionally insecure. Spiteful. Unable to share a room with people that don't agree with them. I could see this from quite an early age because I was surrounded by these people. Even as an adolescent, it was clear to me that they were not people that shoukd be allowed anywhere near power. They were obsessed with control and viewed personal liberty as a problem that stood in the way of their reworking society. These movements always promote their authoritarianism as measures designed to protect people. But this is always the opposite of what they are trying to do. Leftwing movements are basically evil. They put cherished ideas above people and always leave a trail of broken lives in their wake.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-03-25 09:56:24)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-26 14:04:32

Putin Manipulates Trump's Special Envoy - Steve Witkoff
Here is a video with an update on the war in Ukraine. I set a time to play video from the so-called referendum in occupied areas of Ukraine. You can watch as Russian soldiers with combat rifles collect ballots. Anyone who marked "no" to join Russia was taken away at gunpoint. And an official counting ballots without looking at them, holding them up to the camera so to can clearly see they're not marked.

So who is censoring?

RobertDyck · 2025-03-26 15:16:10

Brookings: Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

RobertDyck · 2025-03-26 16:14:00

kbd512 wrote:

The Soviet Union is gone. Much of Ukraine is now gone. It's never coming back. The old men need to accept that and find something more productive to do with their time.

I understand you want to stop war. But giving in won't do it. Yes, Russia has a declining population due to birth rate below sustainability. Putin keeps saying he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union broke, population of the Soviet Union was greater than the United States. January 1989: 285,742,511. Population of the US at that time: 244,954,094. So Putin saw the Soviet Union as dominant. Population of Russia according to their 1989 census: 147,021,869. So the breakup lost roughly half their population. Putin wants it back.

In 2022, prior to the full-scale invasion, Russia force-conscripted (force-drafted, press-ganged) all males in the occupied areas of Ukraine between ages 15-55 who didn't have a Russian passport, and any who did have a Russian passport but had a job Russia considered not critical infrastructure. So all journalists and artists. One week into the invasion, they expanded the age range to 65. If Russia succeeds in conquering and annexing all of Ukraine, they will do it again, but this time with the entire population of Ukraine. Current population of Ukraine is 38.670 million, as of today, March 26. Ratio of males to females in Ukraine age 15-64 is 0.92, and 67.15% are age 15-64. That means 23.89 million potential conscripts. Assume some will remain working in infrastructure, so what? 20 million recruits? Or only 10 million? Then send them to invade Poland. Poland had an army of 216,100 active personnel in 2024, with plans to increase to 300,000. Putin has already released a video targeted at Poland, trying to claim that NATO will not defend Poland. If Putin could manipulate Donald Trump to dismantle NATO, then Putin thinks he could achieve that. Based on statements by Putin and Russian media, it's not clear whether Poland is next, or the Baltic States (Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia). Whichever is first, the other is next. Whichever is first, Russia will force-conscript soldiers from that country before invading the next. Then from there before moving on.

Of course, if the US does pull out of NATO, the rest of NATO will not disband. So Putin is wrong.

Here is video from September 30, 1938. UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London with a paper signed by Adolf Hitler. Titled "Peace in Our Time". Quoting the Chamberlain: "Settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved, is in my view only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with German Chancellor Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine." Nazi Germany started World War 2 by invading Poland on September 1, 1939. Less than one year later, Germany violated the agreement. Do we really want to repeat history?
YouTube: Neville Chamberlain "Peace For Our Time" - Munich Agreement

kbd512 · 2025-03-27 01:52:42

RobertDyck,

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Secretary Baker is one of the people who made statements to the effect that NATO would not expand eastward, which was then reiterated by every NATO member nation leader who actually mattered. You can continue to play this game of pretend with history, but Russia is not fighting in Ukraine over pretend actions on the part of NATO. Thanks to FOIA, we have multiple documents and statements contrary to what is now being claimed. Gorbachev was not the only person or decision maker present at those meetings. Nothing you've stated here has addressed those documents and statements. Either all those leaders from the US, UK, and West Germany were lying, or we have a very convenient way of interpreting what they actually stated before the Soviet Union officially dissolved. Opinion pieces from opinionated history revisionists aren't equivalent to what was factually stated and recorded, in writing, by our own leaders.

You don't think the Soviet Union was the only nation to ever knowingly push objectively false propaganda, do you?

Putin is by no means the only historical revisionist hard at work here. A lot of people from both sides are trying to re-imagine history as it never was. Putin's claim that Ukraine was always a part of Russia is particularly absurd, as are our claims that we never promised not to expand NATO.

Our media makes their money pushing the narratives that their benefactors tell them to push, plain and simple. That's why they've lost nearly all credibility in the eyes of the general public. The leftists don't even believe them these days, despite the fact that nearly all of our media and pop culture is leftist in nature.

Yes, I want to stop the war because Ukraine is not going to win anything, but it absolutely could lose everything. As bad as Russian demographics are, Ukrainian demographics are worse, and there are a lot fewer Ukrainians than Russians. Leftists still don't know how to count. All the former Soviet bloc nations could simply decide to rejoin Russia of their own accord, absent any mere talk of war, but their demographics are still terminal and won't change unless their living conditions improve to the point that the people living there see some point to raising a future generation. Russians are opportunists and decided they could take advantage of the situation, but that hasn't gone well for them.

If you think the Ukrainians are going to fight for Russia, you're as mad as a hatter. Ukrainians wouldn't piss on the Russians if they were on fire. Poland's military is a bit short on manpower, but they have more functional fighting machines than the entire Russian Army at this point. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are more or less split on whether to continue with NATO or rejoin Russia. The issue is a matter of national survival for them. The leadership of the mainland Europeans spend more time squabbling like children and dithering than doing any real fighting. They talk a good game, but won't put their money where their mouths are. The older generation from the Soviet bloc countries remember their "glory days" fondly, despite the fact that there was nothing glorious about being dirt poor cannon fodder for Moscow. I guess it's hard to not remember your youth fondly, however miserable an existence you led. In any event, Russia has all but exhausted their conventional military capabilities in Ukraine. Attacking Poland would be suicidal at this point. Putin is many things, but he's not a kamikaze.

We can continue this obvious stalemate to appease the obtuse amongst us, or cut our losses so that more Ukrainians can live to fight another day. We already know where we line up on this matter, so now it's a contest of will. President Trump offered to put American civilians directly in the line of fire, via the minerals deal, to discourage Russia from future military adventurism in Ukraine. I don't think President Zelensky is going to receive a better deal than what's already being offered, and if I were him I'd be way more concerned about the well-being of my countrymen than whatever Russia has stolen from Ukraine. National borders move throughout history. Land is replaceable. Lives are not. Unless you're personally willing to pick up a rifle and go fight for Ukraine, I would reconsider the gung-ho attitude on fighting the Russians over a patch of dirt that's traded hands a half dozen times during the past century.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-27 15:04:04

kbd512, Now look who is practicing revisionist history. Full text of Address by Secretary General, Manfred Wörner to the Bremer Tabaks Collegium
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm

If you want to continue to claim documents that promise NATO would not expand east, then please post a link to them.

RobertDyck · 2025-03-27 15:32:31

kbd512 wrote:

Yes, I want to stop the war because Ukraine is not going to win anything

They're not trying to "win" anything. They're fighting for their lives. Contrary to bullshit from Putin, Ukraine did not start this. Russia sent soldiers into Crimea, and won quickly because Ukraine wasn't expecting it. They then sent convert ops into the Donbass, murdered mayors of the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, murdered oblast officials, murdered anyone involved in government, then tried to claim it was "rebels". Russia has since admitted it was Russian covert ops. The so-called referendum was a farce. I could give details if you want. After the full-scale invasion of 2022, Russian troops had occupied many areas of Ukraine. Ukrainian military was able to push them back, recapture a lot of land. That's why Russia dug trenches, resorted to WW1 technology to stop Ukraine. Actually a combination of WW1, WW2 and modern tech. Russia is trying to claim they "can't win", but the Russian military has proven to not be as strong as they claimed. All the corruption in the Russian government is responsible. If the money Russia had spent actually went to what it was intended, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago. This is consistent with history; read about the Russian invasion of Finland during WW2.

kbd512 wrote:

If you think the Ukrainians are going to fight for Russia, you're as mad as a hatter.

I wish that were true. But when you stick a gun in the face of an average civilian and tell him do what I tell you or I kill you now, most will do as they're told. Even if it goes against everything they believe. It happened already. Russia force-conscripted citizens from occupied areas of Ukraine prior to the full-scale invasion of February 24, 2022, and ordered them to invade Ukrainian held areas. They were not given body armour, just a combat rifle, no spare magazines or spare ammunition, a single grenade, no uniform, and sent to attack. Of course they were expected to die. They're told if they're injured and can't walk to a medical aid station to kill themselves with that grenade. Russia doesn't have medevac.

Void · 2025-03-27 15:42:47

1) Here is something I have not completely reviewed: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book … ders-early

2) In the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviets were wise enough to understand why we could not tolerate missiles in Cuba. Of course they forced us to mutually remove missiles from Turkey.

3) The British and French have poor powers to operate in regions not surrounding Africa. Regions surrounding China, are a problem for you.

The Romans we only ever able to sustain presence on their side of the null between Africa and China.

Napolean was unable to secure Russia.

The NAZI had Italians with them in Ukraine, and they were ultimately not able to secure Russia.

Britain was able to operate in India with the help of Indians. Heaven knows why the powers of India allowed them to for a while, but then they were invited to leave.

Americans have a little bit more capability to operate on the China/Pseudo Siberian side. My theory is that a lot of colonists that came from Europe were descended from people who had historical connections with that side of reality.

My gut feeling is that the British and French are being totally stupid, and they are courting disaster.

I imagine you don't understand. But the USA is not going to be so stupid as to do "A charge of the Light Brigade" just for silly war Feaver.

There are domains of operation and Britain, France, and I think to a large extent Canada are not suited to that operation.

America would be more suited to it, but we can benefit far better, by trying to utilize the good things they might have to offer us. We are just a bit more compatible, I believe.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-27 15:56:37)

RobertDyck · 2025-03-27 16:29:40

Void, WTF are you talking about? Nobody wants to occupy Russia. It's Russian propaganda. The issue is European countries trying to defend themselves. Post #2836 has a like to a YouTube video of the Prime Minister of UK claiming he had a peace treaty with Adolf Hitler. Of course Hitler violated it less than a year later. Any treaty with a megalomaniac determined to conquer all of Europe will be worthless.

The United States is compromised. Refusing to honour a treaty tells every ally who has a treaty with you that your promise is worthless. The US signed the Budapest Memorandum. Bill Clinton convinced Ukraine to surrender their nuclear weapons in exchange for assurance that the US would defend Ukraine should Russia invade. Well, Russia invaded. Now the US is bound to defend Ukraine. Abandoning them will result in every ally of the US cancelling their alliance, because the US can't be relied upon. And Putin has explicitly stated he won't stop. If Russia is allowed to keep any portion of Ukraine, they will attack again. Russia will repair war damages, repair their economy, build more weapons, recruit and train more soldiers, then attack as soon as possible. Once they have all of Ukraine, they'll take the rest of eastern Europe. Then they'll attack east Germany including Berlin. If they succeed, they'll take the rest of Europe. Whether they attack Fance first or Alaska depends on how much Trump weakens the US. Russia has already stated they want Alaska back.

Again, watch that video. UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938. And Nazi Germany invaded Poland September 1, 1939.

Void · 2025-03-27 17:14:49

Are you referring to "The Budapest Memorandum"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

For the moment I see that the legal obligation is though the UN. Good luck with that. And it seems a nuclear weapon has to be used/threatened???

Obviously Russia can veto anything. But of course somehow the Korean war happened.

I will admit that this is rather above my level.

Quote:

Content
According to the three memoranda,[8] Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively removing all Soviet nuclear weapons from their soil, and that they agreed to the following:
1) Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[9]
2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3) Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4) Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5) Not to use nuclear weapons against any non–nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.[5]: 169–171 [10][11]
6) Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[12][13]
History

Is there some other source of obligation?

Granted we can see what Russia has done as bad, sort of but if the same were to occur to the USA or Canada, could we then somewhat understand the Russian position?

It is not a pleasant situation that is for sure.

Ending Pending

I trust that the Russians will seek to quiet things down, if it is convenient to them, just like anyone else.

If I am to believe Peter Zeihan, Russia and China are both to fall apart. Yes, if pressed to desperation they may lash out, but it is very unlikely that that would profit them without a strong reason of survival.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-27 17:30:22)

kbd512 · 2025-03-27 23:55:09

RobertDyck,

Nobody wants to occupy Russia. It's Russian propaganda.

You really ought to listen to what Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are actually stating in public.

Listen to the words of Kaja Kallas, European Union Foreign Minister, at 16:05:
The EU's Major Reality Check - Glenn Greenwald

Russia's defeat is not a bad thing, because then, you know, there could be really a change in the society. And, you know, there are many different nations right now, part of Russia as well. I think if you would have more, like, small nations, it's not a bad thing if the big power is actually much smaller. - Kaja Kallas, European Union Foreign Minister

That's the Foreign Minister for the European Union directly contradicting your claim that "Russian propaganda" is the source of calls to "break up Russia". Stop hearing what you want to hear and listen to the words coming out of their mouths. We're "The West". We're supposed to be "anti-Russia" by default, because that's the way it's always been since the end of WWII. I get it. I truly do.

That said, this oppose Russia at every turn silliness is, well, becoming more than just silly. It's taken a self-destructive turn, for both us and the Russians. I want to stop screwing with Russia long enough to find out if the Russians truly do want to be left the hell alone. We're going to figure out what they're about by ceasing and desisting with running our war machines up to their doorstep and then pretending like that doesn't scare the piss out of a country that lost 20 million men during WWII in the processing of defeating the nazis. If not, if Russia truly is being belligerent merely because Putin is an imperialist, then we can talk about defeating Russia militarily. The last time this happened, we didn't "defeat Russia", the Russians defeated themselves. History isn't precisely repeating itself, but it's definitely rhyming.

In 2 years or less, America and the rest of the nations in Asia are going to have to put the Chinese military "back in their box", whether we want to or not. That is what America is presently preparing to do, because we must do it, or there truly will be WWIII. We do not need to incessantly antagonize Russia while we're attempting to do that. Unlike the Russian military under President Putin, President Xi's military is not a pushover.

That is what we're focusing on right now here in America, because if we don't, the entire world doesn't have to worry about getting another cell phone or advanced computer chip, for about the next 10 to 20 years, because that capacity will either have been destroyed in the war with China or consumed by making weapons. This is coming because the Chinese government has said it's coming, and in much the same way that President Putin was deadly serious about ending NATO expansion towards Russia, China is far more serious about taking Taiwan and pretty much every other nation near them.

This is the program now, and it's the only foreign policy program America is running at the moment. Other nations can either get with the program if they want their computers, photovoltaic panels, wind turbines, etc, or they can suffer dire economic consequences from their obstinate behavior about where the real threat is coming from. We're not lying to anybody about what the real threat is. The Chinese government even translated their official statements into English so there would be no confusion about their true intentions.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 09:36:30

Garry Kasparov is a former Russian chess grandmaster. He left Russia. He said there's support amount the population for this war of conquest. The only way to cure the Russian public of this, is a humiliating defeat. He believes the Ukrainian flag flying over Sevastopol will do it. This can't end in such a way that both sides claim victory; Russia must lose and it must be humiliating. That's the only way to ensure Russia doesn't try this shit again.

Yes, I have seen a YouTube channel from a woman in Ukraine, calling for Russia to be broken up. That's understandable considering Russia is in the process of invading her country.

RobertDyck · Yesterday 09:59:49

Stop listening to Glenn Greenwald. I've never heard of this guy before your post, and can't listen to his crap. After 2 minutes, I stopped. A simple Google search will show this guy is viscious. A former lawyer who pushes hard to make his point, never allows reality to get in the way. I don't know why he decided to support Russia, but there are comments on the intetnet speculating what happened to him. Just stop listening to him. He must be receiving money from Russia. Remember the scandal about Tenet media?

NPR: How Russian operatives covertly hired U.S. influencers to create viral videos

RobertDyck · Yesterday 10:39:56

Peter Zeihan, recorded March 5. 19 minutes long
YouTube: The Russian Reach: Series Introduction

Void · Yesterday 13:46:22

I still like Peter Zeihan, but he is definitely cozy with the dreaded "Deep State". I think his world view is anchored in the 20th century.

Should one ever put their hand in a bears mouth? I never would if I could help it.

His article is from the 4th, so his comments about investors staying away may have been true then, but now there is this: https://www.newsweek.com/business-trump … on-2048775 Quote:

What To Know
Multiple companies are still putting big money into the U.S. economy.
Johnson & Johnson: On Friday, Johnson & Johnson announced manufacturing, research and development, and technology investments of more than $55 billion in the U.S. over the next four years. They say it represents a 25 percent increase in investment compared to the previous four years under President Joe Biden, crediting an increase in investment levels to the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act. Also on Friday, the company broke ground on a 500,000-square-foot biologics manufacturing facility in Wilson, North Carolina.
SoftBank: On Monday, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago and announced a $100 billion investment over the next four years with a promise to create 100,000 jobs focused on artificial intelligence and related infrastructure, according to CNBC.
United Arab Emirates: After a meeting with Trump, the United Arab Emirates committed to a 10-year, $1.4 trillion agreement with the U.S. that will sustain existing investments in AI infrastructure, semiconductors, energy, and American manufacturing, according to Reuters.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: Semiconductor giant TSMC announced earlier this month in response to Trump's tariffs threat on foreign chips that it would invest another $100 billion into its U.S. operations. The anticipated new chip fabrication plants, two advanced packaging facilities, and a new research and design center will increase the company's total investment in Phoenix to $165 billion—the largest foreign direct investment in U.S. history.
In January, Trump announced a $500 billion private investment in AI infrastructure led by OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank.
Apple: Tech giant Apple announced a $500 billion investment.
Nvidia: On Thursday, the White House announced that chipmaker Nvidia would invest hundreds of billions of dollars over the next four years in U.S.-based manufacturing operations.

In comparison, the Biden administration, as of October 2024, created over 700,000 new manufacturing jobs and announced over $910 billion in private manufacturing investments, according to the Commerce Department.

As far as Firefighters: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 083835007/

I don't think that all fire fighters have been fired, but it is concerning that perhaps some protection has been removed. This is concerning also as it will tempt the same people who do bad things to people Tesla's, may be interested in doing very wrong things.

So, I have some concerns, and hope that the administration will take note of needs for corrections to major actions, if any are needed.

The Tariffs are of two types, as I understand it.
-Incentive to cooperate with border issues.
-Reflexive. If a country tariffs our food exports, then we will apply a tariff to them of a proper proportion.

So, then all one needs to do to get rid of the tariffs is to remove their own tariffs against the USA.

Of course, Quebec will say no, I expect.

Is the Canadian Auto Industry primarily in Ontario, or is some in Quebec?

I hope to have a peaceful discussion with you Robert, so that I can learn.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 14:01:38)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 14:06:29

Canada's auto industry is primarily in Ontario but some is in Quebec.

Calliban · Yesterday 14:10:40

The Fall of Europe.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/fall-europe

Depressing reading. But important to read. The crooks that run Europe are unlikely to relinquish power. And the damage they have done is largely baked in. Native youth population will be a minority in just a few decades, due to falling birthrates and uncontrolled immigration. Trying to discuss the problem in Europe will likely see you arrested and jailed for hate speech. It certainly will in the UK. Most countries in Europe have reached the point where they are probably out of time for a political solution. The rot has gone too far. By 2050, well within the lifetimes of many readers here, Western European nations will be Islamic republics. For decades, conservative parties in Europe have begged people to listen and take the danger seriously. Most people didn't. They chose to spit on the conservatives, vilify and jail them instead. Now they sit down to a banquette of consequences. The story of the European nations ends with the current generation.

Last edited by Calliban (Yesterday 14:22:58)

RobertDyck · Yesterday 14:47:23

Void, we have both been members of the Mars Society for years. I joined in 1999, just one year after the founding Convention. I would hope for rational, adult conversation.

I am seriously worried about the US. Yes, government overreach has gotten out of hand. It's time to trim the government, constrain. Citizens voted for Trump to take away power from the rich. The rich had bought both political parties, ensured average citizens were not listened to. Laws were designed to maintain and expand control of the rich, and to make them richer at expense of average working people. Trump was not effective at fixing all that during his first term, but did prove successful at tearing it all down. Citizens have said if it can't be fixed then burn it down, start over. But what we're seeing does not look productive. Yes, a lot of the complaints are from the rich who don't nwant to lose power, but seriously.

Trump keeps claiming tariffs are paid by the country of origin. That's not true. American importers pay, and pass those costs to American consumers. The effect is to reduce or halt trade. International trade makes the country rich. Ending trade will make America poor. Look at Cuba or North Korea. Shifting manufacturing from China is a good thing. China has problems, their demographics mean they won't have workers to make stuff much longer. Shifting from other third world nations would be good too. But Canada is a major first world nation. Curtailing trade with Canada will make America poor. Same with Europe. Since Mexico was added to NAFTA, it cost some to bring their economy up to speed, but that was December 1992. After 32 years they have a productive economy with net benefit to the US.

My concern is Putin and his Russian crew have manipulated Trump. They want NATO destroyed so Russia can conquer Europe one country at a time. Ending America's alliances will make America weak. Ending trade will make America poor. Putin Wants America to be weak and poor. Why would any American go along with this?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2826 2025-03-23 20:28:03

Re: Politics

#2827 2025-03-23 23:08:14

Re: Politics

#2828 2025-03-24 01:04:07

Re: Politics

#2829 2025-03-24 09:04:06

Re: Politics

#2830 2025-03-24 09:33:04

Re: Politics

#2831 2025-03-24 09:45:29

Re: Politics

#2832 2025-03-24 09:47:25

Re: Politics

#2833 2025-03-25 09:50:53

Re: Politics

#2834 2025-03-26 14:04:32

Re: Politics

#2835 2025-03-26 15:16:10

Re: Politics

#2836 2025-03-26 16:14:00

Re: Politics

#2837 2025-03-27 01:52:42

Re: Politics

#2838 2025-03-27 15:04:04

Re: Politics

#2839 2025-03-27 15:32:31

Re: Politics

#2840 2025-03-27 15:42:47

Re: Politics

#2841 2025-03-27 16:29:40

Re: Politics

#2842 2025-03-27 17:14:49

Re: Politics

#2843 2025-03-27 23:55:09

Re: Politics

#2844 Yesterday 09:36:30

Re: Politics

#2845 Yesterday 09:59:49

Re: Politics

#2846 Yesterday 10:39:56

Re: Politics

#2847 Yesterday 13:46:22

Re: Politics

#2848 Yesterday 14:06:29

Re: Politics

#2849 Yesterday 14:10:40

Re: Politics

#2850 Yesterday 14:47:23

Re: Politics

Board footer