Polish Ambassador Either Ukraine Fights or We will be forced to enter into this conflict

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: putnam6

I'll tell you what, no snark, I will ask you one question: How far should the democratic nations of the world go to prevent a China/Russia-driven world order?

Im not sure I know how to converse with you without the snark...

I feel like I'm being questioned by a Congressional Sub Committee

Congressman Masonicus thank you for the question. Respectfully there has been a Sino/Russia Strategic, Friendship, and Cooperation treaty signed by Jiang Zemin and Vladimir Putin, since July 16, 2001, this was just renewed recently in 2021 there is no indication this is an offensive or world domination treaty or pact.

I'm assuming you were aware of that treaty, but isn't it against International law to sign any treaties or agreements other than mutual defense or cooperation treaties? Nor is there anything in international law that precludes one or more countries from becoming world leaders. Becoming a world leader today in any country would include increasing thier GDP, producing and exporting goods and services at consistently high levels, and offering humanitarian assistance. advancing and leading medical science, space, and yes even military arms and technology. I don't recall America announcing they are now world leaders, you become a world leader by your positive accomplishments, and because all the other countries recognize and appreciate those accomplishments

What if XI and Putin decide to announce they are becoming "world leaders" and their first act as such is to dismantle and facilitate regime change in North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan? What if thier first act together is feeding clothing and helping all the countries on the African continent leave 3rd world status behind? What if their first act as leaders is to choose to go to Mars in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard? Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of their collective energies and skills because that challenge is one that they are willing to accept, one they are unwilling to postpone. And therefore, as they set sail, they ask the democratic nations' blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure that man has ever gone on.

Simply, to become a world leader they would have to do the work, even in today's world they can't just "identify" as world leaders. They would not only have to do the endeavors needed to ascend to the position but the current world leader would have to falter in their own positive deeds, accomplishments, and achievements in the aforementioned categories. They can't climb to the peak unless the current world leader has lost their vision and eschewed all the requirements and responsibilities of a world-leading country. Such as fighting a brutal war in a 3rd world country for 20 years and establishing thousands of contacts and individual allies within the country and abandoning them without making every conceivable effort to withdraw them. A world leader stumbles and loses prestige by just leaving them to the fate of enemies that had fought hard and valiantly on your side for 2 decades. We must remember they didn't have to fight with us, we convinced them as world leaders we would not abandon them. I digress

Even if democratic countries found evidence of a sinister and nefarious Sino/Russian plot it would be difficult to act until they both committed an overt act of war or outright declared war on a block of nations protected by a defense treaty. Respectfully I can't imagine a scenario where based on intelligence alone where it would be sufficient to engage before they both committed the first strike against either NATO or another country.

Even though I loathe World War II analogies, personally I know you are fond of them. So in that vein isn't there now sufficient evidence Roosevelt knew Japan's intentions he certainly knew Nazi Germany's and Hitler's but he was compelled to wait years for the overt act of Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war because as a world leader, you don't act irrationally and without forethought. A world leader is partially defined as having to absorb that punishment till it can bring a consensus of all countries that they must all now act in unison to defeat the enemy. Unless you have a consensus that includes some of the most populous countries in the world respectfully you have to try and achieve your goals by other means.

Once the current world leader set parameters for those vying for world leadership to operate militarily, they can't alter those international laws, treaties, and guidelines to the instigator because the regional conflict is stagnated into a bloody war of attrition. If they do they risk fracturing the limited regional coalition and it's not a move a world leader makes risking an all-out nuclear holocaust till every other avenue of peaceful resolution is explored. Especially in a conflict that so far has recorded civilian casualties listed as 8,317 killed and 13,892 injured. One could reasonably assume any kind of expansion or escalation beyond the aforementioned boundaries, those 13-month casualty totals would double and triple in just days and weeks, even in a conventional scenario once it spills over the border

The current world leader and democratic nations must operate within the normal bounds of international law, they must have a supremely high threshold to be fully justified in engaging fully in open hostilities. If not the democratic nations risk becoming no different than those tyrannical despots they oppose.

Respectfully submitted by Douglas C Neidermeyer, Sergeant of Arms

I bet next time you will just give me a snarky comment. While my answer is obviously bloated with verbiage and vitriol for entertainment as well as effect. I'm sure if you actually read it all you will be able to see and decipher the salient points.

Generally, I'd have to see evidence of a Sino/Russo move to a new world order, and it would have to violently expand beyond Ukraine before the democratic nations become fully involved. Just because China owns mine in the Congo ports in Australia and Xi and Putin doesn't mean we get to nuke the chit out of them.

Hell Russia had a friendly ally 90 miles off our coast and we held our water for 60 years. Let them try and become leaders on the world stage, but the attempt had better be peaceful any extreme uptick in Ukraine and any military special operations anywhere else and it's on like Donkey Kong.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: SecrettoSociety

You are over-analysing a fairly simple situation. Russia decided to invade Ukraine and they have failed.

All this rubbish about "the bear" and "enough... shells to level Europe". et al., is just you having a wet dream. The Russian bear is drunk and has been declawed.

Russia, destroying lives for a hundred years.

Russia as rulers are horrible no doubt & Im not a Putin sympathiser , but Ukraine is in deep s#it .
The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning, but the sad & cold hard facts are Ukraine has lost half a million people already as we converse .
China has committed even more artillery & shells.
The Ukraine is extremely corrupt & brought on their own woes .

originally posted by: SecrettoSociety

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: SecrettoSociety

You are over-analysing a fairly simple situation. Russia decided to invade Ukraine and they have failed.

All this rubbish about "the bear" and "enough... shells to level Europe". et al., is just you having a wet dream. The Russian bear is drunk and has been declawed.

Russia, destroying lives for a hundred years.

Russia as rulers are horrible no doubt & Im not a Putin sympathiser , but Ukraine is in deep s#it .
The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning, but the sad & cold hard facts are Ukraine has lost half a million people already as we converse .
China has committed even more artillery & shells.
The Ukraine is extremely corrupt & brought on their own woes .

CORRECT, when you say Ukraine is in deep doo-doo.

Russia is on the cusp of a successful takeover of the country: www.americanthinker.com...

a reply to: carewemust

There is dubious and wishful thinking behind Ukraine is doomed to defeat rational. But I also caution against the notion Ukraine is on the road to victory. Moreover, there is no easy road map to peace if Russian forces are crushed in eastern Ukraine. So the resulting political pressure on Putin's regime might trigger a second Russian Civil War, and China might exploit that situation and invade Siberia under the guise of peacekeeping/liberation.


If Russia conquers Ukraine, they are positioned to militarily threaten the Baltic States and Poland, which are NATO members. Also, China would interpret that situation as a green light to invade Taiwan.

a reply to: SecrettoSociety

The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning,....

Yes, Western MSM does tend to put a positive slant on how Ukraine is defending itself, if it suits the narrative.
But overall I'd say the message is that Ukraine is not beat, they have held the invasion and are trying to fight back.
Certainly not 'winning'.

a reply to: putnam6

No one said they needed to first strike the west; Russia violated a treaty that the United States is a signatory of. How far should we go to abide by our word?

a reply to: SecrettoSociety

The crux of your argument there seems to be: 'Putin knows'.

I don't think he does.

originally posted by: SecrettoSociety
The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning, but the sad & cold hard facts are Ukraine has lost half a million people already as we converse .

I don't think Western media paints a picture that Ukraine are winning. They are painting a picture that Ukraine has not been defeated, and Russian objectives have been frustrated.

Western media also reports the crimes, the deaths, the rapes, the executions, the torture, the deportations, the misery and all that mayhem that has followed Russian forces in the last year, or so.

Russia, purveyors of barbarity for a hundred years.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: SecrettoSociety

The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning,....

Yes, Western MSM does tend to put a positive slant on how Ukraine is defending itself, if it suits the narrative.
But overall I'd say the message is that Ukraine is not beat, they have held the invasion and are trying to fight back.
Certainly not 'winning'.

They are not rolling over , but there chances are narrowing. The problem is , America either needs to make a brutal show of force to Russia or pull out of NATO. America can’t be both

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: SecrettoSociety

The crux of your argument there seems to be: 'Putin knows'.

I don't think he does.

Putin is the worlds most powerful gangster. He was a East German KGB monster who killed , extorted & double crossed his way to the top of the largest criminal power on earth , Russia !
Sad thing is , how many American small arms & bullets are being sold to The Wagner group via the dark paths of war ???
We are all being played on each side of the globe.
Jokes on us as they laugh into madness $ blood soaked piles of gold . It is all wrong & there are no innocent countries involved.
Pray for the people as they are shoved into the grinder . Peace ☮️

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: SecrettoSociety
The Western media paints a picture of Ukraine winning, but the sad & cold hard facts are Ukraine has lost half a million people already as we converse .

I don't think Western media paints a picture that Ukraine are winning. They are painting a picture that Ukraine has not been defeated, and Russian objectives have been frustrated.

Western media also reports the crimes, the deaths, the rapes, the executions, the torture, the deportations, the misery and all that mayhem that has followed Russian forces in the last year, or so.

Russia, purveyors of barbarity for a hundred years.

Yes all media outlets tell of Ukrainian doom to a degree or more , & only for support of American tax dollars. Overall imo Ukraine will be in deep stuff by end of summer ?

a reply to: vNex92

NATO countries have had "boots on the ground" in the Ukraine all along, just not "officially" because NATO the US doesn't want a direct conflict. Knows it cannot win and the losses it would incur make it unlikely to have the public support for very long. There's also that nuclear thingy. Not that the US is necessarily averse using them (as the only nation to have ever used them on innocent civilian populations) but certainly not when there's a chance the favour could be returned.

Anyway it needs to keep its forces intact should the need arise to "liberate" invade some hapless little country that can't really fight back, as it's prone to do (and yet still finds a way of losing).

The Poles (at least their leadership) certainly seem like "loose cannons" though, with quite a hatred of Russia. Or should I say an extra helping of hatred for Russia (is there anyone they don't actually hate?).

No doubt the US would be thrilled to fight Russia to the "last Pole" also if they could find a way to sit back and watch, especially once they run out of Ukrainians. Seems unlikely but who knows?