Remote View
EU leaders reject Putin's demand to halt military aid to Ukraine
EU leaders reject Putin's demand to halt military aid to Ukraine
47 comments
-
I don't get it. Putin wants the land, their neutrality, to stop any weapon sales, for them not to join any alliance. And what does Ukraine get, besides eventual second invasion?
-
We are already up to the second invasion, in recent times.
-
True, we would be talking of a third invasion. Depends if you count paramilitary units that invaded Donbass after the occupation of Crimea. In that case it would be the fourth invasion.
-
-
They're inflating this because Russia can't let the war end quickly for his own safety.
-
What do you mean, Ukraine gets?
Putin probably.
-
I imagine Putin would answer you that Ukraine gets to continue existing as an independent country.
-
...till the eventual next invasion against which Ukraine will have no ability to defend itself from because of the concessions.
-
There's no need for a next invasion if the conditions specified above are met.
-
"There's no need for a greater invasion, they already have Crimea"
-
Crimea is a different conversation.
Let's be serious, if Mexico was about to join a Russia or China led alliance, would the U.S. not invade Mexico? The U.S. would impose neutrality to Mexico. You can also refer to the Cuba missile crisis.
-
And Hitler only invaded France because France declared war on Germany.
There were no German ambitions in France beyond Alsace-Lorraine, had they not done anything in response to the German-Polish war then France would have been spared.
Therefore France is responsible for every war crime the nazis committed in France.
I really hope I don't need explain why this logic is imperialist apologia.
-
Never said anything remotely close to what you are describing.
-
-
Baltics have been in this alliance since 2004. What danger did that prove to pose to Russia?
Ukraine and all other post-Soviet countries rushed into NATO after being invaded, pillaged, and raped repeatedly by Russians for decades or centuries. You think this is comparable to Mexico/US? Russian aggression is a top reason for NATO's growth, e.g. now thanks to the genius "special military operation", Sweden and Finland joined and the border Russia shares with NATO doubled.
Get a clue vatnik
-
Those Baltic countries are further away from Moscow than Ukraine.
Besides, the US has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serve their interests. They also have invaded countless counties, but I guess it’s only bad when Russia does it?
-
That wasn't responsive to anything I said. You think the difference in range between Latvia to Moscow and Ukraine to Moscow is actually a factor? That range? In the 21st Century? Against the whole of NATO? Keep stretching.
only bad when Russia does it?
You're the only one here carrying water for invaders mate. I don't see the US invading and annexing territories.
-
Yes, the distance to Moscow matters.
Oh really? Were you not born yet when the US invaded Afghanistan & Iraq? Have you been closing your eyes when it has been bombing Lybia, Syria, Yemen & others?
I’m not carrying water for invaders by the way. I just don’t like hypocrites who deem Russia the devil and give a pass to The West while they are literally being an accomplice of genocide right now in Gaza.
-
I just don’t like hypocrites who deem Russia the devil and give a pass to The West while they are literally being an accomplice of genocide right now in Gaza.
Surrendering now is better than losing more and more territories later.
Gaza will not be destroyed later, it will be destroyed if it doesn’t make peace now.
If you’re so brave, why aren’t you at the front lines defending them?
EDIT: Because I know people are going to miss the point, this is a copy paste of his own message.
-
Do you struggle with reading comprehension?
Yes, the distance to Moscow matters.
My point was the difference in distance between Ukraine and Latvia (~150-200km). No it doesn't matter and you won't find any respected analyst who would argue otherwise.
Oh really? Were you not born yet when the US invaded Afghanistan & Iraq?
What territory was annexed? Were those just for imperialist conquest? Do you really think the reasoning behind all those conflicts are equal to Russia's poor excuses for bullying neighbors? Do you have any more non-analogous examples that don't force you to go back 20+ years? Because Russia has many more recent and current examples of actual imperial conquest.
-
-
-
-
-
The problem with your statements is that you're putting your hypothetical dictator-led bullshit on the same level as NATO membership. They aren't the same thing, they will never be the same thing. Putin is a spineless, cowardly, asswipe of a dictator whose word is worth fuck-all, as evidenced by lying about not invading Ukraine last time. Then Crimea happened. Then this invasion happened.
Shit, half the reason we have militaries to begin with is because of the existence of narcissists who claw their way into power by any means necessary, stepping on anyone and anything they can to do so.
-
What are you talking about? Is the Cuba missile crisis hypothetical?
-
That thing solved with NATO oversight?
I knew NATO was a good thing. They should get more countries involved in NATO
-
-
-
If the US invaded Mexico and then asked it not to join any military alliance? I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd find those demands acceptable, even here
-
The U.S. has a long, documented history of triggering regime change in foreign countries and installing leaders who serves the US interests.
-
-
What right does Moscow have to impose its will on other sovereign nations? None.
-
-
-
That's a very stupid premise. You think Ukraine should surrender now only to be surely destroyed later. You think that is preferable to fighting for their freedom.
I don't know what kind of coward thinks in such terms. No offense.
-
Troll or Russian bot I'd guess.
-
I am warning you now, if you insult me again we are done. I enjoy having conversations with people no matter if I agree with them or not but only as long as it remain civil.
Yes, surrendering now is better than losing more and more territories later.
Ukraine will not be destroyed later, it will be destroyed if it doesn’t make peace now.
If you’re so brave, why aren’t you at the front lines defending them?
-
I didn't know I was insulting you. I was insulting a cowards premise. If you recognize yourself in this, it's not an insult, but a recognition of your character.
If Ukraine surrenders with the concessions that Putin wants they are destroyed. If I attack you and tell you I will stop if you give me everything, plus you can't call for help, then that means you are mine. You will retain nothing. You will be under my complete control. Now and in the future. You are finished.
You know, you can also support cancer research and not be a doctor, just like having a brain doesn’t require you to use it, apparently, unfortunately.
I don't want to interact with people like yourself, bye.
-
I don’t know what kind of assholes writes this.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Witch would be a flat out lie
-
Yeah. The absolute best that they can hope for is a Belarus like puppet state.
-
-
-
47 comments