Who gave the US the power to reject negotiation proposals between Ukraine and Russia? I thought Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country defending itself from an invading force. Who’s the US to say what Ukraine can and can’t meet to discuss?
Oh, the burger crackers took that power themselves. No one ceded it to them.
Indeed they did, as they always do. I just can’t stand burger crackers insisting that Ukraine is a sovereign nation, while at the same time their trusted media and government openly admit that the shots are being called from Washington and not Kiev.
Who gave the US the power to reject negotiation proposals between Ukraine and Russia?
No one, that’s what Washington is saying on the article, responding to a plea from Putin for the US to come to the negotiations table.
The “proposal” made by Putin was addressed to the US. The US said it’s not on us, you should talk to Ukraine.
So I believe right now you are agreeing with Washington and disagreeing with Putin, correct?
My question is why is the US rejecting anything, isn’t that a war between Russia and Ukraine?
That’s the reason they’re rejecting it. From the article:
“Barring a Ukrainian demand signal” for peace talks, “there’s unlikely to be a push from Washington,” he said.
Good. Now also please give them the needed financial support
Why hasn’t the cancer killed the mother fucker already?
Because that was always a propaganda piece, probably.
Has Putin actually called for negotiations? An off-hand comment in a Tucker Carlson interview doesn’t seem quite like a serious offer.
Also it seems like Ukraine and ukrainians are still pretty much supporting war against Russian aggression: https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx
Putin has been calling for negotiations since he took power 20 years ago. He’s been appeasing the West and their insistence on marching the world’s first transnational nuclear military to Russia’s borders while asking for negotiations the entire time. In 2014 he ordered the invasion of Crimea in response to USA-backed militias violently taking over Ukraine by storming the capital and forcing the president to flee under threat of death and he was still talking about international agreements and negotiations. Negotiations have always been on the table.
See, there’s this slow motion guillotine hanging over Putin right now, and for each month of successive losses, it’ll slowly be lowered until it reaches his neck.
Then, after a new favourite of the oligarchy and the generals have rubbed a few backs and made a few promises, said favourite will come up from behind and place his foot on the blade to force it through Putin’s neck.
That’s only speculation though.
See, there’s this slow motion guillotine hanging over Putin right now, and for each month of successive losses, it’ll slowly be lowered until it reaches his neck.
Least deluded NATO English Fascism stan
This was typed one-handed and cross-posted to the Ask Penthouse column; I can practically hear the lack of lubricant in that dry, crusty beating.
The negotiation is get the fuck out of Ukraine you blithering waste of flesh.
When can we expect the United States out of the dozens of countries they’ve illegally invaded and neocolonized, then? Can I expect you to sit there and be quiet if another world power decided they wanted to arm and train Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso to start driving the settler military and its eagerly-tapdancing puppets out of the Motherland the same way you sit on your hands for Ukraine?
Or is this just about maintaining hegemon over the vassals and encircling, then unlimitedly genociding an entity that hasn’t even been Soviet for 40 years?
All part of the attempt to sway the next election. Gives Cucker Tarlson an interview where he (Putin) proceeds to paint all of his actions as a poor humble Russian leader just trying to protect his own people from the big bad Ukranians. Then follows it up with an offer to negotiate peace, which shockingly the evil dictator Biden refuses to do. If only we had someone like the Cheeto Benito who’s interested in peace leading the US, everything would be so much better for everyone! Queue troll farm spamming Twitter
Next time you wanna reverse the flow of your internal plumbing and spew fecal matter all over your keyboard, do it on an account that isn’t a two-week-old keyboard smash. Maybe get some more posts in your history. One could see what this one is from orbit.
based US
Based on what?
Not a single paragraph about the actual demands of Russia. Which they have stated often enough. Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep. This is what this whole war was about. But somehow this is never seriously discussed in western media.
If this war was about having NATO on their doorstep, why is it an invasion of a non-NATO country twenty years after the first neighbours of Russia joined NATO? It’s never seriously discussed because it’s either a lie or unfathomably stupid, and whichever of those two it is doesn’t much matter.
Just for a second, imagine you’re a neutral country in eastern Europe. Russia has been fucking with Georgia and Moldova since the fall of the Soviet Union, and now it invades Ukraine for the second time within a decade. Russia has never touched a NATO country despite bordering several of them for literally decades. And then Russia acts all shocked when you say you want into NATO
Because Europe never invaded Russia through the border at Belarus. They always invade Russia through Ukraine. First Napoleon, then the Third Reich.
Russia was appeasing the fascist West as they expanded their multinational nuclear military without democratic accountability into territories populated with leave-behind armies of fascists that they created. Ukraine was the obvious redline because it is the dominant strategic border, as demonstrated by all European and Russian military strategists in history.
You’re confused about history because you don’t understand it.
Learn history, or stop lying. Napoleon invaded Russia through (today’s) Lithuania and Belarus.
Yeah and Russia protested strongly every time. But Ukraine was their red line. Just because you didn’t read it in western media doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I don’t condone the invasion but it was predictable and a colossal “failure” of diplomacy if you look at it charitably. At worst it was a long term plan to force Russia into a conflict with the aid of western media to obscure the reason why this war was happening. Russia is acting just like the US would.
So invading Ukraine fixes what for Russia, exactly? The fastest way to make more of Russia’s neighbours join NATO is to show them that they’re safer in NATO. Like Finland.
Ukrainians mostly weren’t interested in joining NATO until Russia took Crimea. Russia pushed Ukraine towards NATO.
“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008. Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych”. Then the Euromaiden protests happened. Then Crimea etc.
It’s pretty safe to assume that both Russia and the US meddled in the respective election through NGOs and whatnot. My point is that these are geopolitical games which both sides play and which should be reported as such. Then we’d have a chance to protest for peace negotiations. But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.
Public support for joining NATO among polled Ukrainians was very clearly the minority up until Russia invaded.
But as is there is an overwhelming amount of pro-war sentiment.
There’s an overwhelming amount of anti-invasion sentiment. People that support arming Ukraine support Ukraine’s right to not have chunks carved out of it just because its neighbour has a bigger army.
they couldn’t join NATO because of crimea, explain what they really want
What are you talking about? There were no concrete plans for Ukraine to enter NATO prior to the invasion in 2014.
See first paragraph. Russia has protested NATO eastward expansion and warned for decades.
So what? My point was that there were no concrete plans to expand to Ukraine when Putin took Crimea in 2014. If the problem is NATO expansion why invade a country where NATO is not expanding to?
The intent to annex Ukraine as a forward operating base for NATO dates back to the fucking 90s under Clinton. Do you need to see a todo list before you are satisfied? Thank god you’re not responsible for national security of a nation of millions.
plan to force Russia into a conflict
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Did the Poland “forced” Hitler to start the WW2 the same way?
It’s hardly unprecedented. The USA felt forced into an aggressive response to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was the other way, the “Cuban” missile crisis happened when USA wasn’t happy when USSR responded in kind to USA placing missiles in Turkey. So it should be called “Turkish missile crisis” and really “USA missile crisis”.
Just the western popular propaganda conveniently omits who was the instigator of entire issue, but it’s not that hard to find.So it was Soviet plan to start the aggression? Is it the same with Finland? When can we expect Putin to invade it?
I don’t get it, what do you mean?
Read the message you were replying to. I asked specifically how do you force a country to invade a other country (that is not yours). You told about Cuba, so naturally I wanted to confirm if you mean the situation was caused by desire of Soviets to start the aggression.
Please explain how exactly do you force someone (who suggests to be reasonable) into conflict, basically force them to invade anyone.
Well imagine if China were to make a military pact with Mexico and started delivering “defensive” weapon systems to them. There would be protests, sanctions, meddling and attempts for regime change, and if those didn’t work there would be invasion.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
Imagine justifying real war by imagining things.
For the US to invade another country it actually takes far less. Getting bombed is super easy.
These sentences don’t make sense as the response for the quotation.
Do you live in some alternative reality where the US didn’t invade Irak and Afghanistan? And is bombing countries all over the world for whatever reason? Oh let me guess that is TOTALLY different!
We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:
-
The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.
-
But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.
-
From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.
-
The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.
-
Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.
If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.
But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.
-
I doubt many here will defend the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these invasions should have happened, BUT no they are not the same. In case of Afghanistan the US supported the Northern alliance in a pre-existing civil war. Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator who had been involved in wars of aggression (Kuwait) and genocide (Kurds).
Removed by mod
I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country just before the Crimean invasion of 2014 is convenient for your point.
Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland, it didnt work in Crimea, and it would never have worked with Donbas, either.
I guess ignoring how Ukrainians ran the russian puppet heading their country out of the country
A very euphemistic way to describe a coup. It’s amazing how much liberals start to sound like January 6th MAGA chuds as soon as it’s about a foreign country.
CW: “Foxes and Wolves” quote
“The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but they at least don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the “smiling” fox.” – Malcolm X
Republicans and Democrats descend from the same genetic ancestors: white supremacy and Amerikan exceptionalism. Still a dog, just built different between the two.
Removed by mod
You mean when the occupiers of Turtle Island couped
PoroshenkoYanukovych and installed a regime full of Banderite proto-nazis on the take from Anglo settlers? Yeah, I remember that; my next door neighbor got his old home ransacked, raided, and eventually flattened by the fighting that came to his city. He barely made it out alive; and STILL has to look up and down the street before he opens his door so we can talk-- just so he can make sure someone’s not trundling down the drive to drag him back. I remember that well.Poroshenko was the puppet they installed, couped one was Yanukovych.
God dammit, I always mix those two names up.
Portraying Russia as Nazis is convenient for your point.
Removed by mod
“appeasement”… “sudetenland” lol who do you think you’re fooling.
Oh no, i compared facsists to other fascists. But keep going with the false equivalences, thats certainly the way to convince the voters thats working for u.
In case u other readers havent been paying attention, russia is still threatening Poland, Lithuania, and Finland just as they have been for their whole history.
Appeasement does not work. It has never worked. It didnt work in Sudetenland
And it didn’t work for Russia when they appeased the USA as they marched NATO all across Eastern Europe and installed nuclear capabilities aimed at Russia. Russia has appeased the USA for too long. They decided to act in Ukraine finally because Ukraine is THE strategic red line. Both Napoleon and The Third Reich invaded Russia through Ukraine because it is strategically the best path. The USA took up nearly every other borderland with Russia except Ukraine, saving it for last, and Russia appeased and appeased. It stopped at Ukraine.
It is discussed, it doesn’t stand up to any reasoning as to why they captured the Crimean peninsula. They also stated that it was because Ukraine couldn’t stop the rise of Nazism. So which is it? NATO or Nazis?
Ukraine is an independent country and if they want to join NATO they can, having a legitimate grievance doesn’t excuse an invasion.
And even if it was true and was accepted, what a disaster it was because it bolstered a floundering NATO, grew membership and increased military spending across the continent. Truly a genius move.
So which is it? NATO or Nazis?
Hitler’s chief of staff was never prosecuted and later became NATO chief of staff. Many such cases.
Nazism wasn’t defeated by the US, it was successfully internationalized by them.
Then turning Ukraine into Russian territory is a bit counter productive no? That would literally bring NATO to Russias doorstep.
They want a buffer zone. Makes sense in terms of military strategy.
But NATO already is on their doorstep. Norway, Estonia, Poland etc. Even USA is only a few mils away across the Bering Strait.
This is not about Ukraine joining NATO, that’s a convenience.
No one ever invaded Russia through Estonia. The last 2 massive invasions that killed millions of Russians were through the border with Ukraine - Napoleon and The Third Reich. You can’t just pretend that every inch of border is equivalent. If you’re going to pretend you know history, at least don’t expose your clear confirmation bias.
I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.
“Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”
While that may or may not be the case this does not permit interference of sovereign state from acting in its own best in own best interest.
Agreed - but it does make it somewhat of an “own goal”. The invasion was predictable. Western PR says it was totally surprising but it wasn’t.
What’s wild is that Western PR was actually saying that Russia was going to invade and Ukraine kept saying that they weren’t.
Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.
NATO is not the anti-Russia club. They’re a defensive pact. Why would you be concerned about your neighbours agreeing to defend each other? Like a neighbourhood watch, perhaps. Maybe you’d be upset if you’re planning to do the thing they’re defending against. Which is all the more reason for those neighbours to band together.
NATO was founded pretty much explicitly as the anti-USSR club. And it doesn’t even matter what it factually is - it’s what Russia perceives it as. See their final ultimatum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin’s_December_2021_ultimatum
That’s how Putin claims to perceive it, but that’s also what he would claim if his actual goal was to control his neighbours by force. And don’t forget Finland and Sweden responded to the invasion of Ukraine by joining NATO. If Russia perceived NATO as a threat, then Finland joining would make them more likely to be attacked. Clearly Finland feels NATO is making them safer or they wouldn’t have joined. And since then, Russia has moved tons of their military away from NATO borders and into Ukraine.
In other words, I trust the actions of Finland and Russia more than I trust the words of Russia.
Yes, it couldn’t have gone better if NATO planned this all along.
Yugoslavia would levy a disagreement about NATO’s status as a “defensive pact”; as would every Nazi who’s historically headed that “dEfEnSiVe AlLiAnCe”. They’re just bodies on tap for the Five-Eyed Empire. As offensive as they’re needed, at that.
Wait until you hear what that defensive pact did in Yugoslavia and Libya
You know, you have a point. But I’ll note both instances had the UN request NATO intervention. Russia could have blocked either with their veto in the UN Security Council, but they didn’t.
I mean, no, the UN security council doesn’t have any power, they would have still gone through with the invasion.
Not to mention the actual voting on intervention was in the start of 1992, when the comprador Russian government (the same one btw that got promised by USA they won’t add former socialist countries to NATO) was choking on USA boot.
Because they don’t get the option to choose. It’s not that difficult. Those countries weren’t clamoring to join NATO until Russia invaded, so its their own fault.
which is a perfectly reasonable demand.
but since the US wants blood…
No, demanding your neighbours all remain weak enough for you to continue bullying is not perfectly reasonable at all
as opposed to having your biggest aggressor right in your doorstep?
All of the countries near Russia that joined NATO did so because they already have their biggest aggressor on their doorsteps.
so afraid that they based their energy grids on russian fuel
If buying stuff from the other side is your yardstick, NATO clearly wasn’t a threat to Russia. Germany, Italy, France, and America were all some of Russia’s largest import sources in 2021.
which all sounds really dumb if russia was that big of an aggressor in the first place. either that or you know, they werent.
Yes. Creating co-dependencies and peacetime ties, in hopes of keeping relations normal and peaceful.
so save a couple of things, almost exactly as they have been before motherfuckers started provoking war with russia
My friend it was never about NATO. There is no prospective out there based in fact where NATO has anything to do with it.
The British news outlet The Guardian: “Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine
By “the Guardian” here what you mean is “an opinion piece from the fucking Cato Institute”
It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.
The answers are South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria
Russia said since 2014 this was about NATO. Even before they protested strongly the NATO expansion. So how can it not be about NATO? You’re either completely uninformed or lying.
You have the media literacy of a fly. Not even Russia supporters believe this is about NATO.
Uh… yes, we do? I mean not only about NATO, but definitely also about NATO. Even liberals like Jeffrey Sachs and radlibs like Noam Chomsky and undead ghouls like Henry Kissinger agree.
It’s an element but anyone saying the war was started because of NATO is clearly bullshitting. Now if you were to ask why the war is still going on despite both sides wanting peace, NATO is a pretty succinct and accurate explanation.
Removed by mod
and US fascists say banning trans people is about protecting children. only a fool believes the narrative of a fascist
Well if you insist on not taking Russia seriously - then you must be very pleased with the result. Maybe you should call Putin a Hitler a few more times, that will solve everything :D
Removed by mod
I’m a Lemmygrad Andy, if there’s any tankie in this conversation, it’s me. Person’s on ee they’re probably only parroting outdated propaganda because they’re a neo-reactionary, (or an outright fascist) not because they’re communist.
Putin’s agenda of steering the American right into self-destruction to neutralize their geopolitical opponent is going to result in a lot of lot of neo-fascists hitting themselves out of confusion, so keep your eyes open for that.
Basically they don’t want NATO right on their doorstep.
Have you looked at a map of Europe lately?
Removed by mod
Sounds like the kind of ish a settler terrorist would say
Because it’s invaders demanding unprotected targets. It’s the dumbest propaganda imaginable. What is it doing in your mouth?
“We want the Stop Russia Invading Shit Alliance to be further away from Russia! To prove we’re serious, Russia will invade countries that aren’t yet part of the alliance.”
I wonder if you guys realize that Russia is achieving it’s war objectives? West-Ukraine won’t join NATO anytime soon, because they know what will happen. This war also has seriously long term destabilizing effects on Europe - at least on their democracies (refugees, tax burden / austerity).
It’s ludicrous to say that Russia’s protests about NATO are bogus - because they protested about it for decades, ever since the US broke their agreement with Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastwards. It’s just a historical fact that you want to alter in order to justify not negotiating. I’m used to these “alternative facts” level of brainwashing from trumpists but not from liberals.
More countries joined NATO, Russia’s slaughtering a generation of Russians, their money is gone, their equipment is gone, and their big scary mercenary force openly tried to overthrow the government. Wow. What victorious progress.
At this rate NATO’s gonna disband because there won’t be a Russia.
Their demands are irrelevant while on the soil of a sovereign nation without authorization or sufficient leverage. Both of which are not only lacking but severely so.
This whole shit storm has been about one thing. Putins legacy as the czar that reformed the USSR. That’s it. He wants to lift the iron curtain high once more. It’s all dick stroking by a madman.
the czar that reformed the USSR
Least historically illiterate liberal.
Every time I tell you what I think of you it gets deleted. So I’ll just say see you next Tuesday.
Removed by mod
???
America will never allow this war to end.
You know who has total power to end this war? Putin. Just get the fuck out of Ukraine and it’s over.
There’s really nothing to negotiate.
Putin offered a solution for negotiation plenty times. It is solely Ukraine, not even USA, with the power to end this war. But Zelensky does not want to “mysteriously” die at the hands of USA, for denying USA’s terrorist economy their profits.
There is nothing to negotiate. USA/NATO must and will lose, and its power shrink and disappear off this universe.
Removed by mod
Go home Biden, you are sleepy again.
God damn, brother. I bet you thought that was a zinger.
You ain’t no brother.
Putin’s “solution” has been to give him what he wants to stop his invasion. This is how bullies, terrorists, extortionists and facists “solve” problems they create. If you agree with that solution then you’re one or all of those too.
If you’re going to misuse the term “fascist”, at least fuckin spell it correctly. Jesus, and this is supposed to be a representative of the ‘greatest empire on earth’ but ain’t none of its settlers are literate.
Then you might not have known about CIA’s failed coup in 2003 (Orange protests) or the one succeeded in 2013 (Maidan protests), or the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call.
Westerners are THE most brainwashed “model” citizens that live in dictatorships, parrot the same state/military propaganda and project everything they do onto their “enemy” countries.
Nothing of what you said is relevant to the situation in Ukraine.
I swear Putin cocksuckers are THE most brainwashed “model” citizens that live in dictatorships, parrot the same state/military propaganda and what-about everything they do onto their “enemy” countries.
Be original, Western parrot. We know you are a model citizen of some English Fascism country. (Yes, INGSOC from Hitler days is very much still alive, and none of it is socialism.)
Squawk!
They literally were negotiating at the start of the war for this exact outcome: Russia pulls out and Ukraine maintains neutrality.
Johnson threw a wrench in those plans.
Sorry what? You’re blaming Boris Johnson for this now?
One person has the power to put an end to this: the person who started it. Putin.
I’ve seen this Boris Johnson argument several times on here and never once seen anything even remotely approaching a convincing explanation of what leverage Boris ever had to do this. Like a deal for a white peace with Russia was on the table and Boris somehow twisted Zelenskyy’s arm into fighting by threatening to not send weapons that wouldn’t be necessary if there was peace anyway?
Ukraine was never going to abort neutrality lol. Being a NATO member does not affect neutrality.
Also remember the Budapest Memorandum? Ukraine literally gave up nuclear weapons as instructed by Russia, for the promise that was broken.
I’d say the wrench was thrown by someone else. Or, rather, someone hit their own head by a wrench good enough to lose all mind.
Being a NATO member does not affect neutrality.
🤡
Do you still believe the UK is the empire where the sun never sets?? How the F would the UK even be able to influence these events.
I think that if Russia got the fuck out of Ukraine, we’d happily let the war end.
or because all putin has to do is stop invading ukraine. he doesn’t get to invade and then negotiate to keep part of the place he invaded
That’s literally how all negotiations work. Hostage negotiations - you take hostages and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for release. War negotiations - you dominate a space and then negotiate for benefits in exchange for ending violence. Unless you’re the USA, where you dominate a region after the majority of forces are already defeated and then when someone tries to negotiate their surrender you nuke 200k civilians.
Bad take. Why negotiate with an aggressor who is literally invading and trying to absorb a neighbor. You would be rewarding that behavior and Russia gets to stop their unpopular war at the same time.
Smooth brain take. You can’t negotiate unless there are stakes on both sides. Why are you people so daft?
I mean, Putin won’t either, the negotiations are just for gaslighting and propaganda. Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on and even without Ukraine intends to increase military spending. They don’t need it, but it’s not up to them if it ends.
Basically it’s about not negotiating with terrorists, America has plenty other wars going on
This level of double think is really amazing. Within one sentence, “US has plenty of wars” -> good guys, Putin has one war -> terrorist, literally Hitler.
I’m not condoning Putin btw. It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression. Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants. In the end it’s Ukraine, Russia and the tax payer that looses.
If America was actively attempting to annex Sonora I’d be happy to make the same arguments defending China if it armed Mexico
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong. No matter the reason or circumstance, the US would never allow it. Any president not being aggressive about “Chinese weapons on our doorstep” would be ousted. My point is that a decision was made which was a red line for Russia. But we only ever talk about Russia not the deliberate crossing of the red line.
It’s not about moral arguments or right or wrong.
Or
It’s just baffling all the excuses that are made for US aggression vs Russian aggression
It can’t be both. Which is it? Because the point here is that America giving Ukraine weapons is more justified specifically because of Russia’s aggression.
Neither. Both can be wrong. Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades. So what do you do?
What pretty clearly happened is that certain elements pushed for NATO inclusion and (mostly exclusive!) EU trade well before 2008. Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime. Both sides interfered until the result became a devastating war.
So every sensible person should protest in favor of peace negotiations. But that doesn’t happen. The western media portrays any peace negotiations as useless or as a ploy. I mean read the article.
So what do you do?
Russia could stop making all of its neighbours feel like they need protection from it, perhaps.
(mostly exclusive!) EU trade
Alright, please explain to me step-by-step how you expect Ukraine to join two separate and incompatible free trade areas. Because that’s what the argument at the time was about: which FTA to join, the EU-led DCFTA or the Russia-led CISFTA
Russia pushed for a more Russia friendly regime
“The EU wanted a trade deal with Ukraine and Russia wanted to choose Ukraine’s government.” Why are you acting like these are equivalent?
But that doesn’t happen
I don’t think it’s my place to tell Ukrainians to submit to subjugation
Russia protested and warned about NATO eastward expansion for decades.
As if NATO is an entity that expands by itself huh.
Countries. Decide. To join NATO. Recent inclusions only prove that Putin’s struggle is not about NATO at all but about Ukraine. Or, more specifically, about repeating a big win in a small war that would get him whatever his ill brain imagined.
it’s 100% about moral arguments of right and wrong. just because the US’s wars are evil 99% of the time isn’t a reason to reject the one good one
Can you imagine if China put their weapons into Mexico? They’d be stupid to do that. But that’s what Ukraine wants.
You’re clueless. Ukraine was precisely correct in its desire for additional protection from aggression.
TIL Vladimir Putin is America’s puppet.
You can just leave.
I’m not a coward.
I’m right where I need to be.
I meant Russia.
Nobody’s keeping them there but them. Blame whatever boogieman you like - it’s their soldiers in someone else’s borders.
No blame here! I’m just stating a fact that the United States doesn’t want this war to ever end. It has a material interest in keeping Russia bogged down as long as possible. This is true regardless of whether you blame Russia or not.
You don’t know what blame is.
Or who controls Russia’s army, apparently.
I understand who controls Ukraine’s army and government and who tells them when they’re allowed to negotiate.
I’m not talking about blame. I thought I made that clear.
What you’re doing is blame whether you call it that or not.
There is nothing to negotiate. Russia invaded and can fuck off at any time. It is entirely up to them.
And nobody told Ukraine not to negotiate. Russia asked America. America is saying: ask Ukraine.
