THE TIDE OF WAR HAS CHANGED

Those missiles had nothing do with an embargo.

 

Like evolution, things/changes take time. Some changes are good, some not so good. Don't want to rush into anything. (BIG smiley emoji) Besides I thought that the travel ban TO Cuba was lifted.

 

travel ban is lifted, but there is still an embargo on many ressources I think

 

Like I said. Slow evolution.

 

To go back to Ukraine, I think the tide has turned again, and this time in the favor of the barbaric invaders.. and its not good. We need to help Ukraine more, so the tide turns again in their favor

 

We need to give them offensive weapons, yes. And we need (NATO) to move all its troops to Russian borders and to say "If you don,t stop that stupid war, we will make you feel a world of pain".
Putin is a bully, he'll continue because he knows that NATO is 'afraid to act'. But if he was seeing NATO act, he'd coward back in the hell hole he came from.

 

The question should be... Is NOT giving them offensive weapons just prolonging the inevitable, and Russia will eventually continue to escalate regardless?

First Crimea, now Ukraine, where next?

 

If we don't give Ukraine the offensive weapons they need, Russian will take the Donbass. Then, in a few years, they will move further west and take another region. Then, a few years later, they will do it again. And again. And again.

What Russia needs is a black eye.
To get their asses kicked out of Ukraine, of the Donbass, or Crimea. Russia needs their armies to be crushed, annihilated, so they understand that their bullying tactics won't work anymore.

 

But China also had war games about some regions that actually belong to Russia, so... if we are lucky, they will attack Russia

 

Chinese expansionism is a whole other topic though.

 

but if they expand in Russia, it could change the tide of the war in Ukraine.
China has made War Games about some Russian regions near their border, so it could be they are thinking between attacking Taiwan or Russia. They probably are thinking about what is best for them: a war with USA or a war with Russia. And since Russia's army is kinda shitty (we see that with how they act, how they perform) they might decide to attack Russia instead of Taiwan.

 

Good idea. I think they would wait it out until both sides were exhausted. Then STRIKE!!!!!! But, I'm not a general. Just a voter.

 

If China want to be realistic, they'd fare better against Russia. After all, Russia is being targeted by the whole world right now. So siding with USA and NATO would make China be 'good guys' (NATO would stop talking about the massacres in China because they can't speak bad about allies) and they would open up even more trade with the world. While siding with Russia make China allied with one poor country that is a potential rival for the border lands between the two

 

I do not resent your decision to support Milahot's approach, on the contrary, it gives me great satisfaction to know that you have had the opportunity to decide freely between two options, a possibility that was always denied to the citizens of the USSR when they lived under Stalin's communist regime, where there was only one Communist Party and unified thinking and for those people who disagreed they were called dissidents and ended up in a Gulag in Siberia. For all these reasons, I take great pleasure not only in your choice, but also in the possibility that you have been able to make it freely.

I never claimed that the Nazi regime could be described as communist, but I do see that the example was misunderstood. It was just a way of expressing that a political regime can have an attitude that is not exactly the characteristics of that regime, but that everything should be evaluated as a whole, not just taking those parts of an issue that interest us to prove our theory. It was just an example to make it easier to understand the proposed approach, but it proves that it did not achieve its purpose.

In any case, I would also like to point out that the approach I formulated took the form of a question and then a capital NO, details that you are ignoring because they are contrary to your assertions. The question you asked me about whether I dare to suppose that Hitler's regime could be communist should not even have been asked if you had read the NO after the question.

I imagine that in this moment of desperation to contradict my words you are obliged to invent claims, such as the one made earlier about a supposed claim of mine about Hitler's communism and now, again, about the extreme to a greater or lesser degree. What I have said is that a political regime is communist or capitalist, even if in some respects it is not classified as such. I will try a new example.

In Spain there was a right-wing dictatorship between 1936 and 1939, at the beginning of the dictatorship it was very hard and extreme, but with the passing of time, with the influence of Europe through tourism, the appearance of new generations that demanded more freedom, that initial hardness of the dictatorship was relaxed, but until the last day of its existence it was a dictatorship, more relaxed, but dictatorship.

Victor Sebestyen has published a biography of the life of the father of the USSR, "Lenin, the Dictator", in which his good reputation is belied in contrast to Stalin's brutality. Lenin was not a sadist, but neither was he an innocent, his greatest ambition was not social justice or equality, but absolute power. Lenin created Stalin, it was he who built the system that Stalin used, albeit with greater cruelty. Lenin ordered the use of terror against political opponents from the first day of the Russian Revolution, he created the Cheka which later became the NKVD and then the KGB, and it was Lenin who devised the Gulag. The nationalists around Putin are nostalgic for a time when they had a great empire, and that was with Lenin and Stalin, whom they see as two great national leaders. Lenin is to blame for the horrors caused by Stalin, because at the end of his life, he contemplated Stalin's dismissal but never took the decision to remove him from the General Secretariat of the Communist Party. Lenin built a system based on the idea that political terror against opponents was justified by a higher purpose.

Proving a theory, any theory, is very easy and one of the usual tactics is to extract a sentence from its context. It is true that I have said "the past is not negative", but that is a partial truth. You cannot manipulate the past of history and a person's words to prove a personal theory. If you want to know the meaning of those words, please read the whole sentence in context. I hope your next arguments will be more solid than just a part of a sentence extracted from a whole paragraph.