zer0ne
Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2000
- Messages
- 8,379
- Reaction score
- 409
Objective achieved. What more can be done urging NATO to spend more?Then the more this war should carry on if usa wants sell weapons
Objective achieved. What more can be done urging NATO to spend more?Then the more this war should carry on if usa wants sell weapons
This is your assumption, had China attack Taiwan?
China and Taiwan on the surface look sour but their relationship is not as toxic like Russia & Ukraine
Either you are a Gina pi or a joker like zelensky judging on what you have post
Now I realize the whole picture. I watched a video on X which only posted the argument part.Seriously… you go to people house and interrupt them when the house owner speak?
please… read negotiation 101… you can always have your say… there is no dateline in negotiation….
annoy the house owner then want to speak and expect people to listen? Hahaha…. What “card” is that?
Zelensky really deserves Trump… both looking at how they can play to the media.
Yup history is important.wtf reading some of the comments really bo wei gong. what European political moves, and baiting Russia to war.. seriously this is why History is so important.
Those who are on the fence and no idea what's going on, go watch Servant of the People first. Understand what it's like in Ukraine before Zelensky was elected and before the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(2015_TV_series)
Russia oppose the idea of a free Ukraine because it means they lose control of a vast country with precious resources. NATO is just one of the "political" reasons to invade. The real truth is much more.
It is in the interest of small countries such as Singapore to have regional structures that promote cooperation rather than rivalry. But ultimately, Singapore must have the military means and social resilience to defend itself and act in its own interest, because others will help only if it suits their interests.
While the United States today is asserting the right of Ukraine to have sovereignty, Russia says its security should not be compromised by Ukraine’s strengthening of its own security by joining Nato.
Yet, during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, one saw the reverse, with then US President John F. Kennedy speaking about halting Cuba’s offensive build-ups in defence of its own security and calling them a “threat to world peace”.
Meanwhile, then Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev dismissed America’s actions as an “undisguised interference” in the internal affairs of Cuba.
“Both then and now, neither great power accepted a potential threat at its doorstep. I think it’s fair to say that in the future, these sorts of dynamics will continue. And both great powers cited the relevant principle that best suited them, to the position they wished to take,” said Mr Shanmugam.
But small countries often pay a disproportionate price in these geopolitical conflicts among great powers, either as pawns or collateral damage, he said. “There is no mistake that they are often the ones who pay the price.”
While stressing several times that the historical background does not justify an invasion, Mr Shanmugam said the Western portrayal of Russian President Vladimir Putin as having imperial ambitions and being nostalgic about the Soviet Union, although accurate to some extent, does not convey the whole picture.
“It too conveniently absolves the West of any responsibility for the way events have unfolded,” he said, adding that the West has to reflect on whether Russia’s concerns about Nato’s expansion after the Cold War, which the country voiced in 1995 and 2004, for example, were adequately dealt with.
Trump is a president of the USA. He represents the American people. He cannot keep funding billions of dollars into Ukraine. Someone has to play the bad guy.I dun understand so many of u support Trump. Lets imagine Trump was the President in 1942. And we will all now be speaking Japanese becos Trump will just ask singapore to surrender to japan and he will not attack japan with the nuclear weapon becos he is a dictator wannabe and look up to the Japan Emporer. just like how he asks Ukraine to just give up and he is a admirer of Putin.
Lousy analogy. Russia fought this war for survival, because zelensky wana join nato and put nato missiles/ troops on russian borders. Trump is realist. US also nearly went to war when missiles facilities were being built in cuba. When it comes to survival, both US and Russia are willing to start ww3. Trump is stating a fact.I dun understand so many of u support Trump. Lets imagine Trump was the President in 1942. And we will all now be speaking Japanese becos Trump will just ask singapore to surrender to japan and he will not attack japan with the nuclear weapon becos he is a dictator wannabe and look up to the Japan Emporer. just like how he asks Ukraine to just give up and he is a admirer of Putin.
Thank heaven our politicians are far wiser than that (naive) Zelensky.I side with zelensky.
Trump was a b1tch to him. What don't want ceasefire? Is Russia don't want to give him peace. How to reach peace talks when Russia just wants to conquer?
Read this article first before saying he didn’t care. Read the book Not One Inch. Gorbachev’s interpretation of that phrase was not the same as what Baker and Bush interpreted it. Baker and Bush interpreted it the same as how Putin interpreted it. No NATO expansion eastward. Bush contacted Kohl that no further concessions be made to The Soviets as the Soviets were in no position to negotiate due to their economic plight. Yeltsin again brought this up to Bill Clinton in 1997, the expansion of NATO eastward. It was Bill Clinton who told YELTSIN that no nuclear missiles and combat troops will be deployed in Eastern Europe. Seemed like France and Germany interpreted it the same way Putin did because in the early 2000s, Bush wanted to push Ukraine to join NATO but France and Germany opposed in fear of escalation with Russia. So it seems that you are interpreting it the way you want to suit your narrative like how the MSM does.
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/03/24/time/clinton.yeltsin.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
It wasn’t Putin who had a change of heart. It was NATO who never wanted to admit them. Gorbachev and Yeltsin both lobbied to be members but were not admitted. Why?
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561
Your reply is full of contradiction. You said Russia didn’t care when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, but you called him a warmonger. If he was a warmonger he would’ve declared war when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (former Soviet states) joined NATO. My answer to why Putin felt Ukraine joining NATO was a positive thing? They wanted to join NATO themselves. Read the below article.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analy...ifying-20-years-putins-changing-views-ukraine
Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov have used this myth to demand formal Western security guarantees and that NATO rules out future membership for Ukraine and other ex-Soviet republics. Kristina Spohr explains why this narrative is based on not only a misinterpretation of the treaty that reunified Germany, but also a misunderstanding of the diplomatic process that led to it.
The Kremlin under Putin finds the security order developed in Europe since the end of the Cold War unacceptable. Fundamental to this order is the principle (enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act) that each sovereign state is free to choose its own alliances. Russia wants to create instead a buffer zone between itself and the West, thinning the US presence in Europe and once again dividing the continent into spheres of influence. Putin’s reasoning is straightforward enough: he has long viewed NATO enlargement as a threat. To bolster his case, he argues that the Alliance’s ‘open door’ policy is in direct contradiction to ‘Western assurances’ given to the Soviet leadership in 1990 and to Russia after 1991. He is wrong. No such assurances were ever made.
Putin’s myth of Western betrayal is not new. As early as 1993, his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, called NATO’s eastward expansion ‘illegal’. Four years later, Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, a former adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev and head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, stated that several Western leaders had ‘told Gorbachev that not one country leaving the Warsaw Pact would enter NATO’. Ten years after that, at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin complained: ‘what happened to the assurances given by our Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact’? During the annexation of Crimea in 2014, he again spoke of the ‘treason’ of 1990. Then, amid massive Russian troop deployment on Ukraine’s eastern border in December 2021, Putin claimed that NATO has ‘brazenly betrayed’ his country with ‘five waves of expansion’ against Russian interests.
‘Not one inch eastward’ – and what it really meant
Did NATO make a binding promise to refrain from eastward enlargement, only to make a clandestine volte-face?
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, German and Soviet leaders had to confront a number of complex problems, including what would happen to the 380,000 Red Army soldiers stationed in East Germany (GDR) and when and how the USSR would give up its Allied reserved rights over Germany. Eventually, Moscow agreed to withdraw its troops and to relinquish its rights as WWII victor power. As part of this negotiation, a unified Germany also gained full sovereignty. It was therefore free to choose its alliance affiliation, which resulted in it remaining a NATO member, even though it had grown in size.
In Putin’s narrative, Moscow only conceded on these issues because NATO had assured the Kremlin that it would not expand ‘one inch eastward’. US Secretary of State James Baker uttered these much-quoted words on 9 February 1990. (They were not, as is sometimes claimed, made by US President George H.W. Bush, who had ultimately responsibility for American policy.) Baker’s main aim was to allay Soviet fears of a larger, unified Germany by offering assurances that neither NATO command structures nor NATO troops would be transferred to the ‘territory of the former GDR’. Yet Baker’s ‘not one inch eastward’ formula would have made it impossible to apply NATO security guarantees (especially Article 5) to the whole of Germany. Bush therefore suggested to Chancellor Helmut Kohl that he should, in the future, speak of a ‘special military status’ for the GDR. A meeting in Camp David on 24/25 February 1990 confirmed this wording. Special provisions and obligations as regards the GDR territory were subsequently included in the text of the Two Plus Four Treaty (under Articles 4 and 5), which formally re-established German unity. This treaty placed significant restrictions on the deployment of foreign NATO troops and nuclear weapons on East German soil. In return for his willingness to compromise on these points, Kohl granted Gorbachev, in bilateral talks, a financial package totalling around DM 100 billion, in the form of loans and economic aid, which financed the withdrawal of the Red Army soldiers.
To be clear, then, the talks in February 1990 were never about NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. They were confined to the specific issue of NATO’s defence in the wake of German unification – and the two issues should not be conflated. It is also important to remember that the Warsaw Pact was still in existence during these talks, so NATO enlargement was a moot point.
Trump is a president of the USA. He represents the American people. He cannot keep funding billions of dollars into Ukraine. Someone has to play the bad guy.
Zelensky has to sort out his problems. Furthermore he questioned people in the house who are hosting him.
It's all Zelensky's own doing.becos trump clearly wants to take over Ukraine natural resources WITHOUT security guarantee. He wants Zelensky to sign the agreement to let USA take over Ukraine natural resources FIRST then security arrangement then can talk next time and everyone knows Trump dun get his words. After getting Ukraine natural resources, Trump most likely will split Ukraine with Putin.
If u Zelensky are u going to sell away ur country just like how we sold away our Xmas Island to Australia?
Do u think u can trust Trump if he wants to open a joint company with u?
Zelensky will be more than happy to sign and have peace if trump will sign a security arrangement at the same time of signing the agreement to let USA take over Ukraine natural resources but trump refuses
So next time Singapore wants to join some organization and Indonesia threaten us not to join, we dun join right?It's all Zelensky's own doing.
When you depend on others to fight your war, you'll be at their mercy.
Zelensky shouldn't have insisted on joining NATO (to make NATO help him fight Russia). He should have agreed to Ukraine remaining neutral.
Just stay neutral will do. Which is what SG is doing, very wisely.So next time Singapore wants to join some organization and Indonesia threaten us not to join, we dun join right?
So next time Msia wants to stop supplying water to us and threaten us not to bring it up to UN or some international court, we obey right?
There is something called payment in instalment aka protection fee. As long as there are troops there to protect us, we pay.becos trump clearly wants to take over Ukraine natural resources WITHOUT security guarantee. He wants Zelensky to sign the agreement to let USA take over Ukraine natural resources FIRST then security arrangement then can talk next time and everyone knows Trump dun get his words. After getting Ukraine natural resources, Trump most likely will split Ukraine with Putin.
If u Zelensky are u going to sell away ur country just like how we sold away our Xmas Island to Australia?
Do u think u can trust Trump if he wants to open a joint company with u?
Zelensky will be more than happy to sign and have peace if trump will sign a security arrangement at the same time of signing the agreement to let USA take over Ukraine natural resources but trump refuses
SG has remained neutral until in recent years. Like when the war started out we supported Ukraine, now I wonder what is Singapore stance.Just stay neutral will do. Which is what SG is doing, very wisely.
That is why most of us are employees and not leaders. Everything has its pros and cons. A leader has to weigh them and have foresight.So next time Singapore wants to join some organization and Indonesia threaten us not to join, we dun join right?
So next time Msia wants to stop supplying water to us and threaten us not to bring it up to UN or some international court, we obey right?
For survival?Lousy analogy. Russia fought this war for survival, because zelensky wana join nato and put nato missiles/ troops on russian borders. Trump is realist. US also nearly went to war when missiles facilities were being built in cuba. When it comes to survival, both US and Russia are willing to start ww3. Trump is stating a fact.
SG has remained neutral until in recent years. Like when the war started out we supported Ukraine, now I wonder what is Singapore stance.
SG is still neutral la. We stand with Ukraine the country, but not with what Zelensky had done. We rightly condemn Putin because regardless of the reason, invading another country is wrong.SG has remained neutral until in recent years. Like when the war started out we supported Ukraine, now I wonder what is Singapore stance.