That will always be the case, there will never be a time to examine the conduct of members. That's the benefit to joining. You get to do whatever you want once you are in the club, even backslide on supposed democratic commitments (even here in the USA), because it will always be time to show strength and solidarity in the face of X threat, never the time for self-reflection.
It was on the CNN live feed, which now I can't access, but I did find the story on this site (not paywall) Zelensky offers Ukraine to be a neutral country and not join NATO This was back on Feb 25th or so. Also: Why Donbas is at the heart of the Ukraine crisis - CNN Where does it say Ukraine was attacking Donbass? It does mention Russians infiltrating & supplying separatists, handing out Russian passports to make people de facto Russians, etc. And again if that's the reasoning, and they're liberators, why extend into the REST of Ukraine, and why have the massively greatest percentage of people fled AWAY from Russia? So, no don't buy it. That mess has been going on for a while, & they even got called out on the false flag stuff before they did it.
That's not the "benefit to joining", but it has happened a couple of times. Nonetheless, by all accounts Ukranians want to be Western. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
He didn't abide by the Minsk agreement, so he's certainly not going to here. Or at least he'll pretend to to get Russia on the road to recovery, then come up with some other lies.
I would still like to know how EU now saying it might be a good idea to have their own EU military to work in coordination with NATO would affect the Ukraine thing/Russia's garbage. Because if Ukraine joins the EU (which will happen) and the EU militarizes, then it's no different than Ukraine being in NATO.
seems like a really dumb idea. IMO, the flaws with the EU 1. common currency is terrible for the little economies 2. their expansion beyond a trading block to other endeavors - i think they should've only torn down tariffs & other barriers to trade within the EU & negotiated as a block with those outside. Nothing else.
Right but Putin's argument about NATO was the West....yes the US included but the West. EU said they'd work with NATO so it's 6 one way, half dozen the other. Especially since the EU has NATO countries in it, so attacking an EU country would then kick in Article 5, and we're back to square 1. It's just all excuses. He's likely sick, wanted to have a glorious quick win for the honor of the Empire, and forgot that in his yes-man world, no one was going to tell him Russia's defense spending was likely going into buying yachts, planes & mansions, and not towards his military.
LOL. CNN live "Russia says China refused to supply aircraft parts, according to state media From CNN's Chris Liakos A top Russian official said on Thursday that China refused to support Russia with aircraft parts as Russia looks to source components following tough aviation sanctions. Valery Kudinov, head of the Aircraft Airworthiness Department at the Federal Air Transport Agency, said on Thursday that there were around 70 aircraft in the Russian register before the end of February, Russian state news agency TASS reported. .... Quoted in TASS, Kudinov said: “As far as I know … China refused,” adding that the search would continue through other countries, possibly through Turkey or India. "Each company will negotiate on its own," Kudinov added. The world’s two biggest plane manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, have both halted supply of aircraft components to Russian airlines."
DRAMATIC footage shows the moment a column of Russian tanks is destroyed by a Ukrainian ambush near Kyiv. The attack reportedly claimed the life of yet another senior Russian commander as Vladimir Putin’s forces press in on the capital city. Column of Putin's tanks destroyed & 'ANOTHER top commander killed in ambush'
Ok, then I am in favor of that one. The problem with 1 currency is that a country like Greece which fell on hard times, could not let their currency dive which would have greatly alleviated their pain. It's similar to the problem of using a gold standard. Typically, I thought only non-floating exchange rates would be considered barriers to trade, but it doesn't really matter cuz the benefits to the weak economies of having currencies that can float would far outweigh the costs. Germany is the big beneficiary of 1 currency. Germany acting like they were the victim when they had to bail out Greece was rich. EDIT. I guess I was wrong initially in that EU countries do not have to use the Euro.
You don't rely on "faith", you rely on leverage. The leverage here is a restive, poor, and and Russian-hating populace that Russia will have to deal with if they try to conquer all of Ukraine. I don't see where in that article Zelensky said such things. I do see that the article claims he said such things. Let's just give it some time, shall we? If Putin's real aim is truly to conquer Ukraine, then he'll do so. If his aims are more limited, then negotiations should start soon and settle on what I predicted. I've noted what I believe to be Putin's maximal aim in the past, this is what I think his more realistic accomplishment will be. There's a big difference, to us and by extension to Russia. An EU military would not involve the US and would be more independent from us. This is less threatening to Putin in two ways. One, without US support and zeal in pursuing liberal democracy, the new military alliance has both less intent and capability in pursuing regime change in Russia. Two, an EU military erodes our influence on Europe and therefore there will be some interest from the US as well in keeping it weak and ineffective to promote reliance on the US. A pan-EU military has been France's wet dream for many decades, and there's a reason it hasn't come to fruition yet. There are no permanent friends in international politics. If a pan-EU military comes to fruition, there'll be a time when their interests will conflict with ours. Ukrainian secret plans to attack Donbass on March 8 (documents) This is Russian presentation of "proof", but the talk was there before the invasion and used as a justification. Just to be clear, I don't buy the Russian story. However, since the debate is on whether Russia would be willing to negotiate, this is presented as an evidence of why I think they would. That is, it's an appropriate off-ramp as it accomplishes one of their pronounced goals in "protecting" and "liberating" the Donbass region from Ukraine.
Yep, not sure if there was a “better” way to do it, and that Greece situation definitely revealed a major flaw in the currency vs sovereign debts. But if the goal is “one market”, not sure how you do that without settling on one currency.
Here you go. About 1:25 mark. Video: Rattled Zelensky ready to talk terms with Putin for 'neutral status' | Daily Mail Online
Can everyone get on the same page please? On anything? CNN live "State Department stops short of calling Russia's actions "war crimes" after US ambassador to UN says they are From CNN's Jennifer Hansler and Sonnet Swire US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Thursday that actions committed by Russia against the Ukrainian people are "war crimes." “They constitute war crimes; they are attacks on civilians that cannot be justified by any – in any way whatsoever,” Linda Thomas-Greenfiel said in an interview with BBC Newshour. State Department spokesperson Ned Price stopped short of declaring Russia’s actions against Ukrainian civilians “war crimes” during a briefing Thursday, instead reiterating that the United States is “supportive of efforts to document and to investigate reports of potential war crimes in Ukraine.”"
