You were correct when you said to Salim that there is no solution. Salim was wrong to ignore the implications of his own statement and just responded by going back to say that there is a solution which is to go back to the historical solution during the Cuba Missile Crisis and then to talk about the Monroe Doctrine.
The truth is as you stated, the West doesn't want a solution because the West is bent on destroying Russia and breaking it up. The West own anti Russian phobia has gotten so deep that the West is willing to accept a nuclear war. I've read that the Neocons in the U.S. believe that at nuclear war is winnable but more importantly it seems to me that the Neocons no longer want to be frightened by the prospect of nuclear war because they can't accept limits.
This position reminds me of what Jordan Peterson criticized the Left for which is that the Left is incapable of accepting to its desires whereas Conservatives do have their own red lines that they will not cross. This is why now the U.S. has the uniparty in Congress. The U.S. is dedicated to the extinguishment of Russia and that should frighten all the other nations of the world because they can be next. So much for the U.N. Charter of the equality and sovereignty of all its member countries if the U.S. has the right to decided which countries can exist and which ones can't
There's no coming back from the goals of regime change and elimination of Russia or China. The U.S. can't negotiate when it has these criteria for what the war is to accomplish. Russia can't give up nor can it even accept a Ukraine on its borders any longer. Russia must conquer all of Ukraine and either reincorporate it into Russia or make it a Russian protectorate.
Russia cannot give up any land that it has acquired. There is no one in the West that is to be trusted. Absolutely no one. All trust is gone and the U.S. has done it. The U.S. will not abide by anything it promises to do and I we know now that it never was negotiating in good faith with the Russians.
Zelensky doesn't have a country. Ukraine is a breakaway republic of Russia. Ukraine exist on land it stole from Russia. There's nothing in Ukraine that isn't Russian. Odessa is Russian, Crimea is Russian The U.S. has no interest in this region of the world and shouldn't be involved at all with any settlement. The U.S. and NATO are dishonest broker who irresponsibly rolled the dice of the world's present and future on destroying Russia. And employed every illegal act they needed to accomplish that goal.
They would be right to think that. Just think about the fact that the U.S. considered the civilians who carried out the 9/11 to have committed and act of war and this became the rationale for going into Afghanistan even though 9/11 wasn't carried out by Afghan citizens but rather Saudis. Afghanistan was seen as being an easier target plus it had been the training ground.
Still though we need to acknowledge that the U.S. government wouldn't even allow U.S. citizens who had lost family members to sue the Saudi government.
When one government sabotages another nation's infrastructure this has always been considered an act of war. The first salvo and it demands a response otherwise the government whose infrastructure was attacked may invite an even bigger attack.
What's even more frightening is how the members of the CIA, State Department and military worked hard to find a work around the Constitution that would enable them to avoid Congressional oversight. This isn't the first time in recent history either.
When President Obama wanted to sign the U.S. on to the Paris Climate Accords he ran into a problem with being able to do so because the initial draft of the Accords stated that they were binding on all signatories. Obama realized that if that there was no way that he could get Congressional approval under such circumstances because the Republicans would never approve such a document and their approval because the binding nature of the Accords would be considered to make them an international treaty and all treaties have to receive Congressional approval.
In order to get around this road block Obama told the Europeans about his plight and instructed them on how they could solve his problem. He told them that if the Accords were made voluntary then he could enroll the U.S. on his authority as President without having to submit them to Congress. So the Accords were made voluntary.
The American people should be frightened at how the politicians they elect game the system in order to implement their agenda. If the politicians of the U.S. our willing to lie to their own citizens then why wouldn't they lie to their European Allies? Where is there anyone, other than Viktor Orban, Putin and the leader of Serbia, with any kind of moral integrity?
You were correct when you said to Salim that there is no solution. Salim was wrong to ignore the implications of his own statement and just responded by going back to say that there is a solution which is to go back to the historical solution during the Cuba Missile Crisis and then to talk about the Monroe Doctrine.
The truth is as you stated, the West doesn't want a solution because the West is bent on destroying Russia and breaking it up. The West own anti Russian phobia has gotten so deep that the West is willing to accept a nuclear war. I've read that the Neocons in the U.S. believe that at nuclear war is winnable but more importantly it seems to me that the Neocons no longer want to be frightened by the prospect of nuclear war because they can't accept limits.
This position reminds me of what Jordan Peterson criticized the Left for which is that the Left is incapable of accepting to its desires whereas Conservatives do have their own red lines that they will not cross. This is why now the U.S. has the uniparty in Congress. The U.S. is dedicated to the extinguishment of Russia and that should frighten all the other nations of the world because they can be next. So much for the U.N. Charter of the equality and sovereignty of all its member countries if the U.S. has the right to decided which countries can exist and which ones can't
There's no coming back from the goals of regime change and elimination of Russia or China. The U.S. can't negotiate when it has these criteria for what the war is to accomplish. Russia can't give up nor can it even accept a Ukraine on its borders any longer. Russia must conquer all of Ukraine and either reincorporate it into Russia or make it a Russian protectorate.
Russia cannot give up any land that it has acquired. There is no one in the West that is to be trusted. Absolutely no one. All trust is gone and the U.S. has done it. The U.S. will not abide by anything it promises to do and I we know now that it never was negotiating in good faith with the Russians.
Zelensky doesn't have a country. Ukraine is a breakaway republic of Russia. Ukraine exist on land it stole from Russia. There's nothing in Ukraine that isn't Russian. Odessa is Russian, Crimea is Russian The U.S. has no interest in this region of the world and shouldn't be involved at all with any settlement. The U.S. and NATO are dishonest broker who irresponsibly rolled the dice of the world's present and future on destroying Russia. And employed every illegal act they needed to accomplish that goal.
I only hope that time will prove me wrong and Salim right.
And yes, all trust is gone. It's a world completely different from the one I dreamt would exist by this time in my life.
Have you read this piece of investigative journalism yet or heard about it?
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream?r=5mz1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yes. I'm sure it will come up in future discussions.
Some might consider the actions of the US to be an act of war.
They would be right to think that. Just think about the fact that the U.S. considered the civilians who carried out the 9/11 to have committed and act of war and this became the rationale for going into Afghanistan even though 9/11 wasn't carried out by Afghan citizens but rather Saudis. Afghanistan was seen as being an easier target plus it had been the training ground.
Still though we need to acknowledge that the U.S. government wouldn't even allow U.S. citizens who had lost family members to sue the Saudi government.
When one government sabotages another nation's infrastructure this has always been considered an act of war. The first salvo and it demands a response otherwise the government whose infrastructure was attacked may invite an even bigger attack.
What's even more frightening is how the members of the CIA, State Department and military worked hard to find a work around the Constitution that would enable them to avoid Congressional oversight. This isn't the first time in recent history either.
When President Obama wanted to sign the U.S. on to the Paris Climate Accords he ran into a problem with being able to do so because the initial draft of the Accords stated that they were binding on all signatories. Obama realized that if that there was no way that he could get Congressional approval under such circumstances because the Republicans would never approve such a document and their approval because the binding nature of the Accords would be considered to make them an international treaty and all treaties have to receive Congressional approval.
In order to get around this road block Obama told the Europeans about his plight and instructed them on how they could solve his problem. He told them that if the Accords were made voluntary then he could enroll the U.S. on his authority as President without having to submit them to Congress. So the Accords were made voluntary.
The American people should be frightened at how the politicians they elect game the system in order to implement their agenda. If the politicians of the U.S. our willing to lie to their own citizens then why wouldn't they lie to their European Allies? Where is there anyone, other than Viktor Orban, Putin and the leader of Serbia, with any kind of moral integrity?