What's the most realistic solution to Russia-Ukraine crisis?

[FlashDangerpants]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO. I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons, and they traded those in for a binding treaty promising that Russia would never threaten their territory. Why would they be stupid enough to believe the same lies again? This agreement was reiterated in 2009, Putin is a personal signatory to it. He invaded anyway.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ ... ces-glance

Why do you go on about Chomsky so much? You are just trying to bring back Victorian era Spheres of Influence based imperial power games because you are morally cowardly. Surely Chomsky opposes shit like that?

[Age]

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

Oh, I forgot to ask, Does "Israel" have 'nuclear powers'?

If yes, then does "israel" get invaded by bombs, weapons, and/or rocket launchers?

If yes, then will you elaborate on what you actually meant above, here?

unofficially they do

Either "Israel" does, or does not. Introducing the 'officially' words makes absolutely no difference at all as to what the actual Truth is, here, exactly.

I was thinking "invaded" like large incursions of land troops after formal declarations of war by nations...

If that was all you were thinking, at that time, then okay.

Israel is constantly swatting flies

-Imp

I am not sure how a parcel of land could 'swat flies', but if you, really, want to claim that that is what that country is doing, then okay.

However, and anyway, a country in which there are 'nuclear powers' is getting 'invaded'. Which, more or less, goes absolutely against what you said and claimed above, here.

But, then again, how each person defines the word, 'invaded', can be very, very different, obviously.

[Age]

nuclear powers don't get invaded

if Ukraine had nukes...

-Imp

But, countries with, supposedly, 'weapons of mass destruction' do, right?

By the way, what is the difference in actual 'destruction' made from weapons of 'mass destruction' from just 'nuclear weapons'?

Is the 'destruction' not as 'massive' in size? Or, something else, exactly?

the US "supposedly" disposed of all our chemical or biological weapons...

VX is fun stuff

-Imp

So, again, I ask a number of questions, for clarification, and absolutely none are answered, nor clarified.

[popeye1945]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed. NATO stated that if Russia agreed, NATO would not move one inch eastward towards Russia. NATO continued to move towards Russia, and with each nation it usurped, it armed it with American military weaponry, and each time Russia protested, stating its security concerns, it was told that what NATO does is no concern to Russia. Russia finally drew the line in the sand with the incursion of the West into Ukraine on its border and invaded to protect its border and sovereignty. During the Clinton administration, Russia asked to join NATO but was rejected. The American war machine needs an enemy, always, for its war machine, the industrial military complex.

This forced incursion into the Eastern Hemisphere is a concern for much of the Eastern Hemisphere. China knows that if Russia falls, it is next. Much of the world is unhappy with the American Empire and Western colonization, and desires a multipolar world instead of the unipolar world with America as its dictator. The West does not wish to give up its colonial tradition of violent exploitation, most of which is reinforced in the Eastern Hemisphere, its beloved colonies. More than half the world has formed into the BRICS federation of nations for a transformation into a world of cooperating nations, each maintaining its sovereignty as independent nations. This transformation is the essence of the dangers the planet finds itself in, with both sides determined to enforce their vision of the future.

[FlashDangerpants]

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed.

Which accord or treaty was this?

[Gary Childress]

Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?

Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO. I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.

Ukraine used to have nuclear weapons, and they traded those in for a binding treaty promising that Russia would never threaten their territory. Why would they be stupid enough to believe the same lies again? This agreement was reiterated in 2009, Putin is a personal signatory to it. He invaded anyway.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ ... ces-glance

Why do you go on about Chomsky so much? You are just trying to bring back Victorian era Spheres of Influence based imperial power games because you are morally cowardly. Surely Chomsky opposes shit like that?

How am I "trying" to bring back Victorian era Spheres of Influence based on imperial power games? Is that not the world we currently live in whether we approve of it or not? Surely, exposing the world for what it is isn't making the world what it is. Isn't that blaming the messenger for the message?

[Gary Childress]

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed.

Which accord or treaty was this?

It was an unofficial statement allegedly made by more than one key figure representing NATO in discussions with the Russians. It is said that Gorbachev agreed to take down the Berlin Wall with the expectation that this statement was true or would be honored. Gorbachev wanted peace. Apparently, NATO kept fighting the Cold War regardless.

[Gary Childress]

For information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.

By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.

I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'


And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.


So, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?


Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?

I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.

Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.



Okay.

But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.

What more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?

Plenty, like for example, if one really did want to live in peace and harmony, then they would have to first be open and admit the Wrong that they do, then they would need to be honest, while they are seeking out help in order to change for the better, and then just keep speaking absolutely openly and honestly in the quest for them to change for the better. Then, while doing 'this', you will start to 'understand' far, far more, here.

OK. So the world is a shit show that we've all been perpetuating. Who among us is going to be the first to admit responsibility for our share of the problem? And how can we openly admit responsibility when people like you are hovering around over our shoulders, making us feel small? You don't talk to us. You talk to someone who is presumably reading what we've all written "back in these days", like you're some kind of great sage. What good is a sage who cannot save the world from itself? What good is it to say, "back in the days when this was written"? Who is supposed to read that, someone who will then think, "Age was right all along." And reward you with some great prize (posthumously, perhaps)?

[Age]

What more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?

Plenty, like for example, if one really did want to live in peace and harmony, then they would have to first be open and admit the Wrong that they do, then they would need to be honest, while they are seeking out help in order to change for the better, and then just keep speaking absolutely openly and honestly in the quest for them to change for the better. Then, while doing 'this', you will start to 'understand' far, far more, here.

OK. So the world is a shit show that we've all been perpetuating.

When 'you' say 'we', here, 'who' are 'you' referring to, exactly?

Also, why do 'you', here, call 'the world' a 'shit show' for, exactly?

Who among us is going to be the first to admit responsibility for our share of the problem?

I already have. So, do you mean who 'else' among you human beings is ...?

And how can we openly admit responsibility when people like you are hovering around over our shoulders, making us feel small?

Once again only a Truly irresponsible person does not take responsibility for how 'they' are feeling, and so 'blames others' for how 'they' are feeling.

Also, if within 'my words' 'you' some times 'feel' 'small', then, just maybe, there is because there is some Truth in what I say and write, here, which can not be countered nor refuted.

Again, if 'we' were to have a Truly open and honest discussion, here, then what the actual Truth is, here, could, and would, come-to-light.

You don't talk to us. You talk to someone who is presumably reading what we've all written "back in these days", like you're some kind of great sage.

Is 'this', only, what you see and believe, here?

What good is a sage who cannot save the world from itself?

But, 'the world' certainly had not caused nor created absolutely any of the 'problems' nor 'issues', here.

So, it is not a case of 'the world' saving "its" 'self' from "itself", but more about how 'you' human beings can save "yourselves" from "yourselves".

What good is it to say, "back in the days when this was written"?

For the 'very purpose' I do it.

Who is supposed to read that,

Well 'you' obviously have, correct?

And, if, and when, you 'look back' you could, and would, see 'the changes' which have been made, and are happening and occurring, here.

someone who will then think, "Age was right all along." And reward you with some great prize (posthumously, perhaps)?

If absolutely any one thought some sort of 'reward' was due to some one, individually, 'back then', then 'that one' had certainly not been reading, and understanding, what I have been saying, showing, and pointing out, here.

The absolute 'only one' who will be deserving of any 'acknowledgement', here, is 'the generation of adult human beings', who actually decided to actually 'just stop', (for a minute', as some say), 'took a look' at what they were doing, and where they were heading and taking their children along with them, and who actually become Truly honest, and open, and who actually did what it took to change, for the betterment of not just 'them' but for absolutely every one 'coming through'.

And, when 'that generation' did 'do this', then 'they' are the ones', collectively, who will get the 'deserved acknowledgment'. And, for your information, 'the ones' who get the 'actual reward' are 'all of the ones' who come 'afterwards'.

They are 'the ones' who get, and got, to live in 'the actual world' in which every one prior had all wished for and desired. That is;
A Truly peaceful and harmonious world'.

[popeye1945]

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed.

Which accord or treaty was this?

There was no signed treaty, but the debate and its conclusions were quite public. Even if they had not been, there would be something quite dishonest about any pretense that Russia did not have more than adequate reason to be concerned over its security. Russia paid a heavier price than any other country in crushing the monster Nazi war machine. Where America and Britain each lost about half a million souls in that war, Russia lost twenty-seven million and was the main agent in winning World War II. Eighty-six percent of Germany's losses during that war were fighting the Russians on the Eastern Front. This present situation puts the whole world in jeopardy. America wishes to remain an empire, and the West in general wishes to maintain its colonial tradition. More than half the world is united to change the unipolar world with America as its dictator to a multipolar world of cooperating nations, all maintaining their sovereignty in international trade. I am afraid that this world will become a multipolar world of cooperating nations, or we shall perish as a species; that is our grim reality.

[FlashDangerpants]

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed.

Which accord or treaty was this?

It was an unofficial statement allegedly made by more than one key figure representing NATO in discussions with the Russians. It is said that Gorbachev agreed to take down the Berlin Wall with the expectation that this statement was true or would be honored. Gorbachev wanted peace. Apparently, NATO kept fighting the Cold War regardless.

In one post you are telling me that Russia going back on a binding international treaty committing them to respect Ukraine's territorial boundaries shouldn't be seen as a surprise, it's just the way things are. And yet now, Gorbachev (who was never president of Russia) walked into a room with no bargaining chips, made some deal about a wall he wasn't in charge of any more, and walked out of that room telling his comrades that NATO had "totally agreed not to expand Eastward - but don't ask for that in writing" ... and that is somehow more important than that?

[popeye1945]

Which accord or treaty was this?

It was an unofficial statement allegedly made by more than one key figure representing NATO in discussions with the Russians. It is said that Gorbachev agreed to take down the Berlin Wall with the expectation that this statement was true or would be honored. Gorbachev wanted peace. Apparently, NATO kept fighting the Cold War regardless.

In one post you are telling me that Russia going back on a binding international treaty committing them to respect Ukraine's territorial boundaries shouldn't be seen as a surprise, it's just the way things are. And yet now, Gorbachev (who was never president of Russia) walked into a room with no bargaining chips, made some deal about a wall he wasn't in charge of any more, and walked out of that room telling his comrades that NATO had "totally agreed not to expand Eastward - but don't ask for that in writing" ... and that is somehow more important than that?

Yes, isn't reason a bitch, that and dealing in good faith, and some knowledge of the history of the processes that lead up to the present situation.

[Gary Childress]

Who among us is going to be the first to admit responsibility for our share of the problem?

I already have. So, do you mean who 'else' among you human beings is ...?

In what way have you "taken responsibility" for the problem, Age? When have you EVER said "we" instead of "you humans"? You said once after my own prodding that you were also responsible, but you quickly reverted back to "you adult humans" as though you had achieved some great feat of intellectual reasoning. How does that help anyone but yourself? How is that "taking responsibility" for anything? In what way are you "taking responsibility"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move eastward towards Russia, to which America and its NATO allies agreed.

Which accord or treaty was this?

There was no signed treaty, but the debate and its conclusions were quite public. Even if they had not been, there would be something quite dishonest about any pretense that Russia did not have more than adequate reason to be concerned over its security. Russia paid a heavier price than any other country in crushing the monster Nazi war machine. Where America and Britain each lost about half a million souls in that war, Russia lost twenty-seven million and was the main agent in winning World War II. Eighty-six percent of Germany's losses during that war were fighting the Russians on the Eastern Front. This present situation puts the whole world in jeopardy. America wishes to remain an empire, and the West in general wishes to maintain its colonial tradition. More than half the world is united to change the unipolar world with America as its dictator to a multipolar world of cooperating nations, all maintaining their sovereignty in international trade. I am afraid that this world will become a multipolar world of cooperating nations, or we shall perish as a species; that is our grim reality.

How many Ukrainians did Stalin kill in the Holodomor and how many of "Russia's" twenty seven million dead were Ukrainian?

It seems to me there is every reason for Ukraine to want protection against their historically abusive invaders. Russia is Ukraine's historical colonial master, why are you ignoring that history? If you want a multipolar world, why does Ukraine have to be enslaved to Russia for that?

[Age]

Who among us is going to be the first to admit responsibility for our share of the problem?

I already have. So, do you mean who 'else' among you human beings is ...?

In what way have you "taken responsibility" for the problem, Age?

By doing all I can to change 'it'.

When have you EVER said "we" instead of "you humans"?

When 'you' human beings also learn and understand who and what the 'I' is, exactly, in the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will also learn and understand why 'I' speak and write 'the way' that 'I' do, here.

You said once after my own prodding that you were also responsible, but you quickly reverted back to "you adult humans" as though you had achieved some great feat of intellectual reasoning.

Okay.

Has anyone else said that 'they' were human some times, as well as something else at other times?

If yes, then there is a reason why 'we' did and do 'this'.

How does that help anyone but yourself?

It all 'leads up to' some thing "gary childress".

How is that "taking responsibility" for anything?

Who ever said that 'that' was, exactly?

In what way are you "taking responsibility"?

As I just said and wrote above, here, 'By doing all I can to change things', and for the better, I will add.

I can only show and teach you how to change, for the better. I obviously could never 'make you' do it.