Homesteading Forum banner
281 - 300 of 463 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
9,529 Posts
I agree. Why people insist on supporting Zelensky is beyond weird IMO. He's hailed as a hero by our current government, including many republicans. He has banned all his political opposition and has or is trying to ban a whole Christian sect. We have sent more money to Ukraine last year than we spent on road and bridge infrastructure in the whole US. And we have no accountability of where that money went or what it was spent on. Given the long known corruption in Ukraine, there is no doubt much of it went into the pockets of those highly connected in Ukraine.
In a perfect world, where any elected official that was proven to benefit from any form of stock trading faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years hard labor, and the same held true for any politician involved in foreign affairs who benefited monetarily from foreign interests, you would see a lot less interest in helping corrupt despots escape reaping what they have sewn.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
I thought HK suggested
1) Russia and Ukraine cease hostilities.
2) Negotiate recent land grabs
3) Negotiate Crimea
4) Ukraine join NATO

I don't think 2 & 3 will favor Ukraine, but if we get 1 & 4 that would be a win. I would put Ukraine on some type of NATO probationary period to see progress cleaning up corruption. That said, who the hell are we to accuse anyone of government corruption?


I did not see Henry suggesting that at all.


It seems to me that you and I have a different understanding what HK suggested.
Here is what Kissinger said, once again:
…ceasefire line along the borders existing where the war started on 24 February. Russia would disgorge its conquests thence, but not the territory it occupied nearly a decade ago, including Crimea. That territory could be the subject of a negotiation after a ceasefire.
Russia “disgorging its conquests thence” would be giving back everything they’ve taken in this invasion. The “that territory” he references in the last sentence is the territory mentioned in the preceding sentence; the land Russia stole in 2014, “nearly a decade ago”.

Therefore, Kissinger’s brilliant negotiation “suggestion” is, exactly as I said:
1- Ukraine joins NATO

2- Russia gives back everything they stole in this war (meaning the 2022 leg of it)

3- Russia entertains later talks of possibly giving back (or giving concessions on) Crimea.
I don't understand what you think winning looks like.
Winning, to me, looks like whatever still exists of the Russian military being entirely in Russia; actual Russia, not what Putin says is Russia today.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
I agree. Why people insist on supporting Zelensky is beyond weird IMO. He's hailed as a hero by our current government, including many republicans. He has banned all his political opposition and has or is trying to ban a whole Christian sect. We have sent more money to Ukraine last year than we spent on road and bridge infrastructure in the whole US. And we have no accountability of where that money went or what it was spent on. Given the long known corruption in Ukraine, there is no doubt much of it went into the pockets of those highly connected in Ukraine.
Of course the Ukrainian government is corrupt. So is Russia’s, and so is ours. Money being sent to Ukraine surely is making it into the pockets of well-connected Ukrainians, but also into the pockets of well-connected Americans. The whole thing is a con. There’s no question about that.

But, some percentage of those dollars are being used to kill invading Russians. Sending arms to Ukraine isn’t about supporting Zelenskyy. It’s about supporting the average Ukrainian soldier who is using those weapons to scatter the blood of Orc invaders.

Putin is our enemy, just as much as Xi is. Both of them are bent on world domination, and that domination aim doesn’t stop at the Atlantic of Pacific oceans. They want to dominate Europe because domination of Europe will make it easier to dominate us. We are the prize.

That this war is being fought 5,000 miles from our shores is entirely a function of the fact that we have built alliances that allows it to be so. The enemy has to fight through those 5,000 miles to get to our homeland but, if we don’t support the fight where it is happening, it will no longer be 5,000 miles away.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what happens to Zelenskyy, as an individual. It matters where his country’s border lies, because that puts our enemy that much further away from ours.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
Though my opinion is likely unpopular, I would tend to be opposed to sending them bandaids and pillows.
If we had taken and held that position throughout our history, there would be only two countries on Earth, the United States, and the kingdom of whatever Commie faction came out on top in the eastern hemisphere in the 20th century. And, in light of the later country’s existence, the former may not… so maybe there would be only one.

The western globalist cabal of the WEF/FED/UN is evil and something to be feared and fought, no doubt, but it would be foolhardy to forget about the evil that is Marxism, and the brink of destruction to which it brought our world in the 20th century.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
44,118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #287 ·
Russia “disgorging its conquests thence” would be giving back everything they’ve taken in this invasion. The “that territory” he references in the last sentence is the territory mentioned in the preceding sentence; the land Russia stole in 2014, “nearly a decade ago”.
I considered this also in Kissinger's position,
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.​
which led me to this
2) Negotiate recent land grabs
Regardless of how you and I interpret HK, I see the steps I outlined as a way to bring an end to current hostilities, and eventually finalizing the Russian invasion.

The world is not going to forget what Russia is doing, and pressure should be kept on them until land taken in this conflict is returned to Ukraine, or maybe as KH suggested some type of self-rule in that area (I struggle with this).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts



By Spiridon Ion Cepleanu - History Atlases available., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17831314
Well, I guess that settles it, then.

Funny that you’ve spent so many threads on preparing to sell “your” house, when you clearly don’t own it at all. All this time, you’ve been squatting on land owned by the British crown and claiming it as your own.
Ecoregion Map Slope Organism Water


Or is it the Occannechi Tribe that really owns your house?
Map Slope World Font Line
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
I considered this also in Kissinger's position,
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.​
which led me to this


Regardless of how you and I interpret HK, I see the steps I outlined as a way to bring an end to current hostilities, and eventually finalizing the Russian invasion.

The world is not going to forget what Russia is doing, and pressure should be kept on them until land taken in this conflict is returned to Ukraine, or maybe as KH suggested some type of self-rule in that area (I struggle with this).
That’s all well and good, but the question was about the “suggestion” that Kissinger was so proud of, which was, explicitly, in his own words, once again, from YOUR article this:
This is why, last May, I recommended establishing a ceasefire line along the borders existing where the war started on 24 February. Russia would disgorge its conquests thence, but not the territory it occupied nearly a decade ago, including Crimea. That territory could be the subject of a negotiation after a ceasefire.
Now, as far as how the land that belongs to Ukraine (which includes Crimea) gets divided between Ukraine, Russia, or, hell, The Lollipop Kingdom, when Ukraine ceases caring, I no longer care. I support us supporting Ukraine to fight for their land so long as they’re willing to fight for it. The Russian army being obliterated is not a win condition, but it is a very nice collateral effect of the win condition that Russia seems to insist on pushing Ukraine to.

I agree that “self rule” of the areas that Russia claims as its own as being dubious, because that really just means that those lands become Russia’s but with a puppet government of another name installed to run it… lest the west “meddle” there as well in hopes of gaining their allegiance and some hope for freedom.


Kissinger made, as I said, some thought provoking points (despite the absolute ridiculousness of his resolution suggestion). The one that stuck out to me the most was his point about how Russia, while a violence-prone enemy to the US, was at least a somewhat stabilizing force in the Eurasian continent. That’s true. Had it not been for a strong Russia, that much open land would have been a power vacuum, likely taken by more radically terroristic nations, or even China.

We learned that lesson when we took out Saddam Hussein. As bad as he was for his people, and untrustworthy as he was on the world stage, he was the only thing keeping an ISIS-like caliphate from forming there. Likewise, a power vacuum in Eurasia would probably be even more dangerous than Russia.

That said, the Gulf War, in hindsight, was a perfect outcome and would have been best left alone. Hussein invaded a sovereign and western-allied nation, and needed to be knocked back into his place. It wasn’t until later, when we unnecessarily destroyed his army and dismantled his government that we created the Petri dish for ISIS to form.

The west has allowed Russia to go too far in its rebuilding of its empire, when we didn’t react to Chechnya, Georgia or Crimea, and now we’re paying a much higher price to knock Putin back into his own borders.

If we hadn’t helped with the Ukrainian resistance, and Kyiv fell in 72 hours, as Comrade @MoonRiver was so desperately hoping for, later this year, Putin would have been amassing his Orc army at the border of the Balkans, and we would have been facing a true Article 5 crisis, and the fighting, then, would have been even more costly for us than it is now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
44,118 Posts
Discussion Starter · #290 ·
Did Sweden say who blew up Nord Stream?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
22,227 Posts
Of course the Ukrainian government is corrupt. So is Russia’s, and so is ours. Money being sent to Ukraine surely is making it into the pockets of well-connected Ukrainians, but also into the pockets of well-connected Americans. The whole thing is a con. There’s no question about that.

But, some percentage of those dollars are being used to kill invading Russians. Sending arms to Ukraine isn’t about supporting Zelenskyy. It’s about supporting the average Ukrainian soldier who is using those weapons to scatter the blood of Orc invaders.

Putin is our enemy, just as much as Xi is. Both of them are bent on world domination, and that domination aim doesn’t stop at the Atlantic of Pacific oceans. They want to dominate Europe because domination of Europe will make it easier to dominate us. We are the prize.

That this war is being fought 5,000 miles from our shores is entirely a function of the fact that we have built alliances that allows it to be so. The enemy has to fight through those 5,000 miles to get to our homeland but, if we don’t support the fight where it is happening, it will no longer be 5,000 miles away.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what happens to Zelenskyy, as an individual. It matters where his country’s border lies, because that puts our enemy that much further away from ours.
If it isn't about supporting Zelensky, why are some Congressmen proposing a bust of him being permanently placed in Congress?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
If it isn't about supporting Zelensky, why are some Congressmen proposing a bust of him being permanently placed in Congress?
Perhaps I mispoke. MY (and I think many others’) support for Ukraine isn’t about support for Zelenskyy.

The play with Congress is easy to see through. By making Zelenskyy into some Churchillesque hero, they can rally the support of CNN’s Tinman army, and therefore launder even more money through this cause.

Make no mistake, Congress creatures deifying Zelenskyy, placing his bust in their office and such, is not about supporting Zelenskyy either. It’s about supporting their bank accounts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
If it isn't about supporting Zelensky, why are some Congressmen proposing a bust of him being permanently placed in Congress?
1. Because as President of Ukraine he is the "symbol" of it's people. He enjoys over 90% approval in Ukraine.

2. Because Congressmen are political opportunists and think it will get them support at home.

3. For some, because they see him as admirable.
 

· SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
18,605 Posts
BlackRock to advise Zelensky on investments aimed to rebuild Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink agreed to coordinate investments geared toward rebuilding Ukraine, an announcement from Zelensky’s office published Wednesday said following a call between the two parties.​
The readout of the call comes after Fink and Zelensky held a meeting earlier this year to discuss a project that involves BlackRock's Financial Markets Advisory group guiding the Ukrainian government in allocating reconstruction funds and creating opportunities to drive further investment.​
more
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
BlackRock to advise Zelensky on investments aimed to rebuild Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink agreed to coordinate investments geared toward rebuilding Ukraine, an announcement from Zelensky’s office published Wednesday said following a call between the two parties.​
more
Is there a point to this post?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
1. Because as President of Ukraine he is the "symbol" of it's people. He enjoys over 90% approval in Ukraine.

2. Because Congressmen are political opportunists and think it will get them support at home.

3. For some, because they see him as admirable.
I will say, exposing myself to our local Putin’s mouthpiece as being biased because of it, that I do find Zelenskyy’s handling of his nation’s invasion admirably.

The man was a comedian and TV actor who got in office strictly on the basis of his people rejecting both Russia and the US’ choices to be their president. I don’t think anyone expected much from him, in the event that Russia did invade, but he’s certainly at least playing the part of a president with cajones.

He could have accepted luxury accommodations from any of a number of western countries while he presided from exile, but he opted to stay behind for the inspiration of his countrymen. His “I don’t need a ride. I need more ammunition.” no doubt generated a lot of the good will that’s turned into materiel support from the west and, given Putin’s original comedic play to take Kyiv at the start did place him in significant personal danger.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,536 Posts
Is there a point to this post?
@MoonRiver knows that every time he tries to concoct commentary from the Russian propaganda that he’s gorging himself on, he ends up saying something completely and demonstrably false (like “Kyiv taken in hours”, “Odessa to be taken in days”, “no NATO land bridge into Russia”, and “you heard it hear first, the war is over”… just to name a few), so he’s taken to just dropping silent turds hoping to make his quota and his Chairman happy… like the map showing that Ukrainian land used to belong to Mother Russia a few posts up.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,526 Posts
I considered this also in Kissinger's position,
If the pre-war dividing line between Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by combat or by negotiation, recourse to the principle of self-determination could be explored. Internationally supervised referendums concerning self-determination could be applied to particularly divisive territories which have changed hands repeatedly over the centuries.​
which led me to this


Regardless of how you and I interpret HK, I see the steps I outlined as a way to bring an end to current hostilities, and eventually finalizing the Russian invasion.

The world is not going to forget what Russia is doing, and pressure should be kept on them until land taken in this conflict is returned to Ukraine, or maybe as KH suggested some type of self-rule in that area (I struggle with this).
The world has been ignoring and working at forgetting the invasion of a variety of areas by russia during the last couple of decades.
 
281 - 300 of 463 Posts
Top