393
Tucker Carlson set to interview Vladimir Putin
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
393 points (93.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1762 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you would be keeping up with the news you would've known that, they wanted to discuss neutrality,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60901024
but then peace negations have been stalled on the ukrainan side, per request of the Brits.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-must-not-be-pressured-into-bad-peace-deal-says-uk-pm-johnson-2022-06-07/
And after that they forbade em by law.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/04/zelensky-signs-law-declaring-talks-with-putin-impossible/
Hence, no Putin alone cannot stop the war. There is still too much pressure on all sides to keep the war going.
https://www.vox.com/world/2022/12/16/23507640/dc-party-invite-military-contractors-money-ukraine-russia-war-us
While poor guys on both sides are paying the highest price for someones wallet to be bigger.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-uncovers-mass-fraud-weapons-procurement-security-service-2024-01-27/
Wait you're telling me that Russia can't pull out of the invasion they started because Boris Johnson said it would be illegal?
No not illegal. But how do you imagne it would happen?
I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That's actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It'd likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn't like that, I'd love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn't lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There's a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Here is a map 200 yrs later.
So no Crimea for Ukraine.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this "historic border" talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn't come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
Well it does. Russia is a federation composed of states with they're historic borders.
I'm honestly not entirely sure what you're getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine? No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they're own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia. Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn't it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don't see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You're right about that common fear on article 5, I'm hoping it will never be tested haha.
True, I dont want a nuclear war.
Historic borders are called like that because they are history, not current.
Well either keep those that are. Or kill more people to have em moved. Wich you like more?