States Divesting Blackrock

[Rightguide]

What does that mean? There is always room for negotiation, but those terms need to be decided by the two parties. That may be complete capitulation by Ukraine or it may just be negotiation of borders.

At this point in time, I haven't seen either party move that way. Politics may alter that in the future.

You said, "there is no both sides." You can't have a negotiation without an examination of "both sides" of the issue. The Russians have said they consider a Nato force on their southern border an "existential threat." Their nuclear policy states they would only use nuclear weapons if they determined an existential threat to the survival of their state exists. So, as I stated early on in this debate, Ukraine should consider neutrality as a starting point and Russia might then consider withdrawal. A neutral Ukraine in the manner of Austria and Switzerland could be beneficial to Ukraine. Neutrality provides Ukraine with diplomatic autonomy. It can engage in dialogue with all parties, mediate conflicts, and act as a bridge between East and West. By avoiding alignment with any military alliance, Ukraine can maintain positive relations with both NATO and Russia.

In summary, embracing neutrality could position Ukraine as a bridge between East and West, enhance its economic prospects, and contribute to regional stability. I think Ukraine should carefully weigh the advantages of neutrality.

 

[ll74]

You said, "there is no both sides." You can't have a negotiation without an examination of "both sides" of the issue.

The only sides in a negotiation of this instance are what either side is willing to concede to in order to cease hostilities. That doesn't change that one is the invader and one is the defender. If Ukraine were to start a second front by invading Russia, that would alter the dynamic, but not likely.

That negotiation doesn't require any historical examination of either side.

The Russians have said they consider a Nato force on their southern border an "existential threat."

Yes, they've said that.

Their nuclear policy states they would only use nuclear weapons if they determined an existential threat to the survival of their state exists. So, as I stated early on in this debate, Ukraine should consider neutrality as a starting point and Russia might then consider withdrawal.

They can certainly consider such things.

A neutral Ukraine in the manner of Austria and Switzerland could be beneficial to Ukraine. Neutrality provides Ukraine with diplomatic autonomy. It can engage in dialogue with all parties, mediate conflicts, and act as a bridge between East and West. By avoiding alignment with any military alliance, Ukraine can maintain positive relations with both NATO and Russia.

Russia invading has changed the equation on Ukraine's stance of joining NATO. It might very well be that they refuse to abide by Russia's position on the matter....but the whole reason they wanted to join NATO in the first place was the aggression of Russia towards Slavic nations. An invasion didn't change their minds.

In summary, embracing neutrality could position Ukraine as a bridge between East and West, enhance its economic prospects, and contribute to regional stability. I think Ukraine should carefully weigh the advantages of neutrality.

I'm summary, I believe Ukraine should do whatever it needs to do for its people. That probably means losing territory and possibly means dropping any effort of NATO and/or EU efforts. Russia is not likely to get what it wants out of this unless it takes over Kyiv, imo

 

[Rightguide]

The only sides in a negotiation of this instance are what either side is willing to concede to in order to cease hostilities. That doesn't change that one is the invader and one is the defender. If Ukraine were to start a second front by invading Russia, that would alter the dynamic, but not likely.

That negotiation doesn't require any historical examination of either side.


Yes, they've said that.


They can certainly consider such things.


Russia invading has changed the equation on Ukraine's stance of joining NATO. It might very well be that they refuse to abide by Russia's position on the matter....but the whole reason they wanted to join NATO in the first place was the aggression of Russia towards Slavic nations. An invasion didn't change their minds.


I'm summary, I believe Ukraine should do whatever it needs to do for its people. That probably means losing territory and possibly means dropping any effort of NATO and/or EU efforts. Russia is not likely to get what it wants out of this unless it takes over Kyiv, imo

The reason why Russia invaded was because of the subjugation by Ukraine of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas. The reality on the ground in Ukraine at present is that Russia has possession of most of the Donbas and absent some kind of talks will no doubt go all the way to the Dnieper River, retake Kharkiv, cross the river, and retake Odessa. Thus making Ukraine a rump state of Russia. Unless Russia packs up and surrenders a Ukrainian victory over Russia is not in the cards. It's time to talk.

 

[Veroe]

Being a member of the feared radical AOC and Bernie supporting far left I am all for divesting from Blackrock. Not because of the stupid and fake DEI nonsense, but because I think Blackrock is shady as he'll and harmful to the economy as a whole.

 

[Rightguide]

Being a member of the feared radical AOC and Bernie supporting far left I am all for divesting from Blackrock. Not because of the stupid and fake DEI nonsense, but because I think Blackrock is shady as he'll and harmful to the economy as a whole.

They are too big and powerful and probably own our government. They have 9.5 Trillion in assets.

 

[Veroe]

They are too big and powerful and probably own our government. They have 9.5 Trillion in assets.

Yeah too big to fail and too connected to regulate. Like many companies business-friendly republican attitudes have helped grow to such a state.

 

[ll74]

The reason why Russia invaded was because of the subjugation by Ukraine of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine in the Donbas.

So it wasn't about NATO.

Got it.

The reality on the ground in Ukraine at present is that Russia has possession of most of the Donbas and absent some kind of talks will no doubt go all the way to the Dnieper River, retake Kharkiv, cross the river, and retake Odessa. Thus making Ukraine a rump state of Russia. Unless Russia packs up and surrenders a Ukrainian victory over Russia is not in the cards. It's time to talk.

It's time to talk when parties agree to talk. Russia could decide to cease their hostilities and seek to engage in discussion. Ukraine could seek capitulation and seek to engage in discussion.

Russian pretext to war was horse shit. Their annexation of Crimea led to kidnapping and russification of the region, which led to a lot of hostility and changing of stances from Ukraine. I think Ukraine should definitely consider calling for talks.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah too big to fail and too connected to regulate. Like many companies business-friendly republican attitudes have helped grow to such a state.

They probably have the majority of both parties in their pockets.

 

[Bray123]

Putin invaded Ukraine and used Nazism as a pretext.

If Putin was really concerned about Nazism on his doorstep he'd have invaded Hungary.

 

[ll74]

If Putin was really concerned about Nazism on his doorstep he'd have invaded Hungary.

Yep....his pretext of war is horseshit

 

[Veroe]

They probably have the majority of both parties in their pockets.

Yeah, they're corrupt as hell, but they know how to make the swamp in DC work for them.

 

[desecration]

Chickens coming home etc:
Fink Ignores Elephants in BlackRock's Room