Dalai Lama seeks the restoration of dialogue to bring back peace in Ukraine

[Ajay0]

The Dalai Lama has sought the restoration of dialogue to establish peace in Ukraine.

https://www.dalailama.com/news/2022/hope-for-dialogue-to-restore-pease-in-ukraine
 

Quote

 

Our world has become so interdependent that violent conflict between two countries inevitably impacts the rest of the world. War is out-dated – non-violence is the only way. We need to develop a sense of the oneness of humanity by considering other human beings as brothers and sisters. This is how we will build a more peaceful world.

Problems and disagreements are best resolved through dialogue. Genuine peace comes about through mutual understanding and respect for each other’s wellbeing.

We must not lose hope. The 20th century was a century of war and bloodshed. The 21st century must be a century of dialogue.

 

 

The two world wars of the previous century which started in europe on the basis of military alliances killed more than a hundred million people and injured much more. Proper global leadership could have preempted such wars and conflicts , but unfortunately they were allowed to grow in size and scale reaching critical mass levels due to lack of the same.

The third world war based on nuclear weapons can eliminate total nations and continents. World civilization will be regressed back to a few centuries till normality prevails again.

Even the present situation has resulted in economic recession and hardship for the masses while the rich and powerful are insulated from it.

Massive destruction of life and property happened in europe in the last two world wars and it is important to ensure that a culture of peace and nonviolence is created in europe to check the momentum of the past periods of brutality and violence which is threatening to reveal itself again.

So it is important to rein in aggressive instincts and allow rationality and non-emotivity to develop so as to prevent worse case scenarios and ensure that best case scenarios are allowed to emerge instead.

As Abraham Lincoln stated, 'Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?'

Hence communication channels should be kept open with space for dialogue to resolve all disagreements.

Global leadership not partial to any military alliances are the need of the hour to exercise sound judgement with respect to solutions that may bring peace and global progress in its wake.

Edited December 27, 2024 by Ajay0

[Basman]

These wars are tragic and modern weapons are so immensely destructive for better and for worse. It does make waging war hardly profitable unlike our Stage Red roots but the destruction and terror they wreak is sometimes hard to comprehend. Which is why we live in the most peaceful age of human history. 

Its rather paradoxal. They better we get at killing our fellow man the more peace reigns. Violence is a sovereign power that everyone understands. 

Europe is the most peaceful and prosperous region in the world despite the enermous diversity over a relatively small space. We got our violence out of our system after two world wars.

Like it or not, violence is a part of who we are. Its a matter of weilding it justly rather than not at all.

[Ishanga]

This is why Raising of Human Consciousness is the primary act and Importance in Today's world.. In the past, wars here and there would happen, with the weapons they had available to them most of those wars were localized, now today with Technology on the rise, and the ease of access to this Technology for the Ppl of the World, a War now would be the end of everything on this planet, so we interdepently and Individually are more powerful than ever before in all aspects of Life, the only problem is a lack of Consciousness or Awareness of Reality, how Everything is connected and what it means to be Human.  

I am not sure if Humanity will make it, it still at the tipping point, if I go by what I see everyday while functioning within a big society, I don't see much hope, if we don't kill each other via War, we will do it via the Environment/Climate, or Culture Wars, Ideological Wars or some other conflict because most of Humanity does not see itself as One Big Whole, they see themselves as Independent Islands with huge wants and needs that can never be fulfilled...

[Leo Gura]

Lolz

[Breakingthewall]

The dialogue is very easy: do you give me the dombass? Yes. Ok.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

The dialogue is very easy: do you give me the dombass? Yes. Ok.

There's way more at stake than that.

Ukraine would need future security gurantees and Russia will want guarantees of not joining NATO.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There's way more at stake than that.

Ukraine would need future security gurantees and Russia will want guarantees of not joining NATO.

I guess that those guarantees are implicit. Ukraine knows that if it joins NATO it will have war, Ukraine knows that Russia has restrained itself in its attacks. It knows that there could be another level of war where kyiv ends up like Gaza in a week. And Russia knows that attacking Ukraine has a huge cost, and is also unnecessary if the borders remain as they want. Russia will fortify the Dombass in such a way that it will be unrecoverable, and the borders will remain fixed for a long time.

[Nilsi]

59 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The dialogue is very easy: do you give me the dombass? Yes. Ok.

The problem is that this may not be the case at all. There is a stark difference between Lavrov’s claims - which largely revolve around strategic objectives like ensuring Ukraine never joins NATO and possibly securing parts of the Donbas with strong Russian national identity - and Putin’s far more expansive ambitions. Putin has made it abundantly clear, in speeches and interviews like his bizarre sit-down with Tucker Carlson, that for him, this is about much more. He envisions reinstating a "great Russian empire," one that includes all of Ukraine, which he sees as illegitimately torn away from Russia through a series of historical "injustices."

There is very clear evidence of this internal rift within the Russian government: Lavrov’s continued assurances to Blinken that an invasion was off the table, along with his admission of the strategic disaster such an operation would entail, even as U.S. intelligence confirmed its imminence, speaks volumes. In a functioning government, such blatant disconnect would be unthinkable.

Putin appears to be far more radical than most commentators give him credit for. His personal ideology and grand ambitions go well beyond the pragmatic concerns of most Russian officials, making meaningful negotiations not just difficult but potentially impossible. 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Nilsi

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

There's only one way to guarantee peace in Ukraine, and that is throught Russia falling appart. Add China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan to that list - as well as abandoning fosil fuels so that Saudi Arabia loses all influence - and we pretty much have world peace, more or less.

Edited December 29, 2024 by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

There's only one way to guarantee peace in Ukraine, and that is throught Russia falling appart. Add China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan to that list - as well as abandoning fosil fuels so that Saudi Arabia loses all influence - and we pretty much have world peace, more or less.

Nice meme. So your definition of world peace is draining all non-Western entities of resources and agency? That’s exactly what the West, under U.S. leadership, has been doing for over 100 years, in case you hadn’t noticed. All it has accomplished is breeding contempt, deepening inequality, and causing catastrophic coordination failures - not to mention the countless humanitarian disasters born from this imperialist foreign policy.

What needs to happen is the exact opposite: strengthening foreign actors and their internal security, building robust economic relationships and trade networks, and fostering strong diplomatic ties to create a multilateral world order capable of coordinating effectively and addressing the increasingly complex challenges facing civilization.

I realize this may sound patronizing, but it’s not meant that way. Those foreign entities are legitimate political actors with their own national interests, and they should be treated as such. Simply recognizing and respecting this would already solve half the problem.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Nilsi

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

@Nilsi What you're saying is what we are forced to do. We are forced to "reconcile our differences" and "search for compromises and optimal solutions" with objectively inferior countries. It would just be ideal if they had not existed. I am all for multilateral world but it should ideally be a world in which there are no dictatorships or any such non-straight versions of goverments. There should only be democracies or meritocracies

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

with objectively inferior countries. It would just be ideal if they had not existed.

I’m genuinely impressed by your willingness to so bluntly proclaim your chauvinism and imperialist fantasies, without even bothering to veil them in the politically correct rhetoric that most people here rely on when they proudly assert their superiority based on some supposed universal truths about human development.

You do realize that many of these so-called "inferior countries" existed and thrived for millennia before your empire stumbled onto the scene, raping, pillaging, and arrogantly claiming superiority?

[Whitney Edwards]

7 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Nice meme. So your definition of world peace is draining all non-Western entities of resources and agency? That’s exactly what the West, under U.S. leadership, has been doing for over 100 years, in case you hadn’t noticed. All it has accomplished is breeding contempt, deepening inequality, and causing catastrophic coordination failures - not to mention the countless humanitarian disasters born from this imperialist foreign policy.

Where's the evidence for this? 

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The problem is that this may not be the case at all. There is a stark difference between Lavrov’s claims - which largely revolve around strategic objectives like ensuring Ukraine never joins NATO and possibly securing parts of the Donbas with strong Russian national identity - and Putin’s far more expansive ambitions. Putin has made it abundantly clear, in speeches and interviews like his bizarre sit-down with Tucker Carlson, that for him, this is about much more. He envisions reinstating a "great Russian empire," one that includes all of Ukraine, which he sees as illegitimately torn away from Russia through a series of historical "injustices."

There is very clear evidence of this internal rift within the Russian government: Lavrov’s continued assurances to Blinken that an invasion was off the table, along with his admission of the strategic disaster such an operation would entail, even as U.S. intelligence confirmed its imminence, speaks volumes. In a functioning government, such blatant disconnect would be unthinkable.

Putin appears to be far more radical than most commentators give him credit for. His personal ideology and grand ambitions go well beyond the pragmatic concerns of most Russian officials, making meaningful negotiations not just difficult but potentially impossible. 

That's not real at all in my opinion. First, Lavrov is simply Putin's subordinate. Second, Putin invades Ukraine after 8 years of bombings by the Azov battalion on the Russian population in Dombass. Dombass wants to be Russian and annexation is possible. Ukraine will never be Russian and that is obvious, and even less so after this war.

If Putin had wanted to, he would have destroyed Ukraine like Chechnya, but that has not happened. This is a war for Dombass and to secure Crimea, two strategic places with enormous resources. The only thing Putin has done is to prevent the American project of balkanization and predation of Russia.

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Putin has made it abundantly clear, in speeches and interviews like his bizarre sit-down with Tucker Carlson, that for him, this is about much more.

Imo all that talk about that Ukraine was Russian in the past is one way of justifying the permanent annexation of the Dombass. The other option would be to say that the Dombass is Russian because Stalin starved the original population to death and repopulated it with Russians, and this reason does not seem very legitimate. The case of Crimea is similar, it was neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but Ottoman, populated by Tatars, who were deported by Stalin and repopulated by Russians. What to do? Give it back to the Tatars? Give it to Ukraine, with its aggressive nationalism and anti-Russian sentiment? Or annex it with all the enormous advantages that this entails? Putin's actions are logical and simple, he is not a megalomaniac nor does he want to restore the Soviet Union, he wants to strengthen and preserve Russia, which is under constant American threat. Russia is an ancient country that has fought many enemies successfully, and it seems that it intends to continue doing so.

 

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

@Nilsi What you're saying is what we are forced to do. We are forced to "reconcile our differences" and "search for compromises and optimal solutions" with objectively inferior countries. It would just be ideal if they had not existed. I am all for multilateral world but it should ideally be a world in which there are no dictatorships or any such non-straight versions of goverments. There should only be democracies or meritocracies

Please. You believe all the American narrative. Yes, would be ideal that al were your slaves. Ideal for you, of course, for them maybe not so. "Inferior"🤣. The ideal would be a world ruled by enlightened saints like Dick Cheney and Victoria Nuland, where all the countries would be grateful to the lobby of weapons investing half of its GDP in pink American weapons so you can have 4 cars and weigh 200 kg

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

You do realize that many of these so-called "inferior countries" existed and thrived for millennia

Yeah, and so? Millenia of prosperity with inferior goverments😂

8 hours ago, Nilsi said:

before your empire stumbled onto the scene, raping, pillaging, and arrogantly claiming superiority?

It only stumbled onto the scene because it was needed. America is like a Roman Empire of our times, standing alone and defending the best current civilization has to offer, and defending other countries offering the same as well. While hordes of unwashed barbarians from the outside are constantly bashing at her gates

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Please. You believe all the American narrative. Yes, would be ideal that al were your slaves. Ideal for you, of course, for them maybe not so. "Inferior"🤣. The ideal would be a world ruled by enlightened saints like Dick Cheney and Victoria Nuland, where all the countries would be grateful to the lobby of weapons investing half of its GDP in pink American weapons so you can have 4 cars and weigh 200 kg

No, I said that the ideal world would be the one where there's only democracies

[Whitney Edwards]

Just now, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Yeah, and so? Millenia of prosperity with inferior goverments😂

It only stumbled onto the scene because it was needed. America is like a Roman Empire of our times, standing alone and defending the best current civilization has to offer, and defending other countries offering the same as well. While hordes of unwashed barbarians from the outside are constantly bashing at her gates

No, I said that the ideal world would be the one where there's only democracies

You don't see problems with democracies?

What if the votes are mostly submitted by large number of ignorant folks? 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

You don't see problems with democracies?

What if the votes are mostly submitted by large number of ignorant folks? 

I do see problems with democracies. A way to treat them would be to change them into sort of a democratic meritocracies, in which all parties would be abolished. There would be no such thing as a left wing or a right wing anymore. All political marketing would be abolished and strictly prohibited as well. People would still vote online throught certain platforms and they'd be able to vote anytime, not just during certain periods, to vote in or vote out any individual they deem fit. On this site or this platform there would only be an offer of capable individuals for each department or ministry or whatever it's called. Genuine experts in their respective fields so to speak. Those people would then rule.

Voting pricess should be made inconvenient enough for stupid people to not be able to vote. You'd have to actually search all the information on how to vote for yourself, I would compare it to, for example, setting up your uni account and applying to all semester subjects, that whole process tends to be complex and tedious. That's how voting should look like as well.

Edited December 30, 2024 by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Raze]

Dalai Lama is a disappointment. Even the Pope gives more forceful statements for peace. 
 

Buddhists in Myanmar are committing genocide in the name of Buddhism and all he did was make some statements.