Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't watched the interview, but neither will I be any paying attention to twitter rubbish giving opinions on it. That stuff is worse than useless.

To be fair to @Roar87 , his point isn't a bad one: if you are that invested, you should probably go to the original. Even if it confirms your expectations, at least you have gone to the source.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
There is a point negotiations fail and faith can never be restored without at the very least significant gestures the other party seems unwilling to give... sometimes the only negotiation possible is with the barrel of a gun.

As for insults - and more a general point rather than specific to this exchange - that goes both ways - people posting such utter tripe that even they likely don't believe it are no less insulting really than someone attacking them personally.
Click to expand...

Then if that's the case then I respectfully say your argument is moronic and is utter tripe. If you think difficult negotiations are not possible then you have a screw loose. This is why we have concepts of escrow, collateral, poison pills where it becomes difficult to break the terms because of force not relying on trust.

Or has there never been difficult agreements in the past. Personally I think people are so brainwashed they think in black and white like their propaganda tells them to (on both sides...) and thus shades of grey make them uncomfortable to face reality of what they will have supported dying to reach same conclusion.

arknor said:

Sounds like no one will be left soon, there's a 59 year old in that video and they can be drafted until 60

wonder what they are loosening the forced conscription to next then 65? 70?
Click to expand...

Like the fact that if it transpires that a settled negotiation was always on the table then burning up Ukrainian men will seem rather..
Immoral to say the least. Not that the Americans care! Or if we're even that anyone here really cares. It's not our families that have gone off to die. Just a bunch of pseudo intellectuals reading twitter accounts and flightradar and ghouls jacking off to gore porn and the ghost of kiev.

potatolord said:
One of the problems Ukraine has is all of the teenagers who left as refugees two years ago. If they won't come back to fight, that's a problem.

To be fair, I don't know whether they are returning or not.
Click to expand...

Ah that will be the decider, let's bring all the teenagers and young adults to fight old people's war, tale as old as time! This time it will make the difference!
 
Orangeade said:
Then if that's the case then I respectfully say your argument is moronic and is utter tripe. If you think difficult negotiations are not possible then you have a screw loose. This is why we have concepts of escrow, collateral, poison pills where it becomes difficult to break the terms because of force not relying on trust.

Or has there never been difficult agreements in the past. Personally I think people are so brainwashed they think in black and white like their propaganda tells them to (on both sides...) and thus shades of grey make them uncomfortable to face reality of what they will have supported dying to reach same conclusion.



Like the fact that if it transpires that a settled negotiation was always on the table then burning up Ukrainian men will seem rather..
Immoral to say the least. Not that the Americans care! Or if we're even that anyone here really cares. It's not our families that have gone off to die. Just a bunch of pseudo intellectuals reading twitter accounts and flightradar and ghouls jacking off to gore porn and the ghost of kiev.



Ah that will be the decider, let's bring all the teenagers and young adults to fight old people's war, tale as old as time! This time it will make the difference!
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to compare corporate legal mechanisms for enforcing contracts with negotiating with someone who will literally ignore any pieces of paper and legal rulings and drive tanks into your country?

Also putting those into contracts is something you do as a fall back. You simply wouldn't sign a contract if you fully expected it to go wrong because you know that the other party will not even try and abide by it.
 
Efour said:
I think you should watch it.

I don't think he's actually lying I think he mostly believes what he says, justifying himself and his actions which is even worse.
There's a lot of history 2000/2014 I'd like to know a lot more about Russia/US dealings under that period.
Click to expand...

It's not what he's said that's important, in this case. It's who he is. At his heart, Putin is a former KGB officer. At large part of his training and subsequent work would have been devoted to coming up with ideas to destabilise the USSR's enemies through propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation. At the time, the KGB we're a formidable and competent organisation, and I don't doubt Putin was good at his work.

His job here isn't to convince of his ideas, merely to sow doubt in your mind.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
So you don't think propaganda works?
Click to expand...

This.
If we wanted any reasonable view on how it works you only have to look back to Brexit.

There is a reason people do it, and thats because its very effective.
If anything in the days of social media where a Russian (or any other bad actor) can easily make out that they are someone else then its probably more effective.
It used to be difficult for a foreign state to get access to lots of another countries population, now things like TwitX give the perfect platform.
 
Last edited:
wesimmo said:
Why are you trying to compare corporate legal mechanisms for enforcing contracts with negotiating with someone who will literally ignore any pieces of paper and legal rulings and drive tanks into your country?

Also putting those into contracts is something you do as a fall back. You simply wouldn't sign a contract if you fully expected it to go wrong because you know that the other party will not even try and abide by it.
Click to expand...

Yes you do in business get into bed with forced partners on occasion. And again you seem to be missing the part where you can provide such enforcement on a different level I was merely giving real world examples.

Let me be lazy and suggest you ask chatgpt if you're struggling.. here's even a free prompt on the house!


With the war between Russia and Ukraine at a violent stalemate how could a peace treaty/negotiations be done in a manner that could both be accepted and also enforced. Please also give examples in the past where this has worked.

ChatGPT
Negotiating a peace treaty in the Russia-Ukraine conflict would require careful consideration of the interests and concerns of all parties involved. Here's a potential approach:

Involvement of Relevant Stakeholders: Ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in the negotiation process, including representatives from Russia, Ukraine, separatist groups, and international mediators.

Mediation by Neutral Parties: Enlist the help of neutral parties, such as the United Nations, European Union, or a coalition of neutral countries, to facilitate the negotiation process and provide impartial mediation.

Address Core Issues: Identify and address the core issues underlying the conflict, such as territorial disputes, security concerns, and political grievances. This may involve compromise and concessions from both sides.

Guarantees and Security Mechanisms: Implement guarantees and security mechanisms to ensure compliance with the terms of the peace treaty. This could include international peacekeeping forces, monitoring mechanisms, and verification processes.

Incentives for Compliance: Provide incentives for compliance with the peace treaty, such as economic assistance, trade agreements, and diplomatic recognition.

Long-Term Reconciliation and Reconstruction: Develop a plan for long-term reconciliation and reconstruction in affected areas, including measures to address humanitarian needs, promote economic development, and foster interethnic reconciliation.

Examples of successful peace treaties and negotiations in similar conflicts include:

Bosnian War (1992-1995): The Dayton Agreement, negotiated with the assistance of international mediators, ended the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It established a framework for peace, delineated territorial boundaries, and created mechanisms for power-sharing and reconciliation among ethnic groups.

Northern Ireland Conflict: The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, facilitated by international mediators, brought an end to decades of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. It established a power-sharing government, addressed issues of disarmament and demilitarization, and promoted cross-community reconciliation.

Colombian Conflict: The peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016, mediated with the assistance of international facilitators, ended over five decades of armed conflict. It addressed issues of land reform, political participation, and transitional justice, and included mechanisms for disarmament and reintegration of former combatants.

These examples demonstrate that successful peace treaties require comprehensive negotiations, involvement of neutral mediators, addressing underlying grievances, and implementing mechanisms for compliance and reconciliation.

User
Any other examples involving more country/country than sectarian?

ChatGPT
Certainly! Here are a few examples of peace treaties and negotiations involving conflicts between countries rather than sectarian or internal conflicts:

Camp David Accords (1978): The Camp David Accords were signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, with mediation by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The accords led to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979, ending decades of hostility between the two countries and establishing diplomatic and economic relations.

Paris Peace Accords (1973): The Paris Peace Accords were signed to end the Vietnam War, involving negotiations between the United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong. The agreement resulted in a ceasefire and the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, although the conflict between North and South Vietnam resumed in 1975.

Treaty of Versailles (1919): While controversial and ultimately unsuccessful in preventing future conflicts, the Treaty of Versailles formally ended World War I and was signed by the Allied powers and Germany. It imposed significant territorial, military, and economic penalties on Germany, leading to resentment and contributing to the conditions that led to World War II.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (1987): Signed by the United States and the Soviet Union, the INF Treaty eliminated all nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, helping to reduce tensions during the Cold War and contributing to arms control efforts.

These examples highlight the diversity of peace treaties and negotiations involving conflicts between countries, ranging from wars to arms control agreements, and the importance of diplomatic efforts in resolving international disputes.
Click to expand...
 
Orangeade said:
Then if that's the case then I respectfully say your argument is moronic and is utter tripe. If you think difficult negotiations are not possible then you have a screw loose. This is why we have concepts of escrow, collateral, poison pills where it becomes difficult to break the terms because of force not relying on trust.

Or has there never been difficult agreements in the past. Personally I think people are so brainwashed they think in black and white like their propaganda tells them to (on both sides...) and thus shades of grey make them uncomfortable to face reality of what they will have supported dying to reach same conclusion.



Like the fact that if it transpires that a settled negotiation was always on the table then burning up Ukrainian men will seem rather..
Immoral to say the least. Not that the Americans care! Or if we're even that anyone here really cares. It's not our families that have gone off to die. Just a bunch of pseudo intellectuals reading twitter accounts and flightradar and ghouls jacking off to gore porn and the ghost of kiev.



Ah that will be the decider, let's bring all the teenagers and young adults to fight old people's war, tale as old as time! This time it will make the difference!
Click to expand...
Sigh. Young Ukrainians insisted rather strongly to reject Russia, even going as far as to forcibly overthrow the last Russian puppet government and face armed Russian forces head on in the streets of Kiev.

The people of Ukraine elected a government with mandate to route out Russian influence and corruption and become a free and democratic society.

Vladolf is free to withdraw Russia from Ukraine at any time and keep Russia. The Ukrainians on other hand are free only to withdraw from freedom itself. That is the challenge every great nation has faced at least once in it’s history.
 
Roar87 said:
It's a good interview, did you come to that conclusion after watching it all?
Click to expand...

KWZOubQ.jpeg
 
It's interesting that we attack the government 24/7 accusing them of being corrupt bad people. But in a time of war we're expected to assume our government is above board, totally honest, and beyond criticism.
 
Last edited:
Absolute state of this.


Carlson just sits there drinking it up like free beer.

BowdonUK said:
It's interesting that we attack the government 24/7 accusing them of being corrupt bad people. But in a time of war we're expected to assume our government is above board, totally honest, and beyond criticism.
Click to expand...

Just come out and say what you mean. Vagueposting doesn't advance the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom