You must log in or register to comment.
I think Americans in general don’t see it as a difficult choice to support Ukraine
Politicians find it difficult because Republicans are pro-russian, and both parties are heavily aligned with Israel. So Ukraines the only one really seeing any push back.
Republicans aren’t pro-Russia. Some just think war against Iran or China is a higher priority.
The republican party has literally been proven to have received Russian bribes, but go on.
Fixed
Who voted that government in?
Sorry, do you think bourgeois democracy is really democracy?
It’s a democracy for the capital owning class.
Or we fix some shit at home first.
There is always shit to solve, but right now, if ukraine’s shit isn’t solved soon enough, we all will have a lot of piled up shit to solve.
Here’s an idea go sign up as a volunteer in Ukraine and fight yourself instead of cheering on for other people to die for you, you disgusting sack of shit.
Weaker Russia means lower need for future military spending, and it is cheaper to give old weapons to Ukraine than to dispose of them locally.
Russian economy is growing while the west is going into a recession. Russian factory activity grows at fastest pace in over six years, meanwhile while US manufacturing activity shrinks the most in three years.. UK now can’t even make steel from raw materials.
Yes, people still bleat about a weaker Russia. 🤡
Love to save ukrainian children by dragging the war on, making it deadlier and deadlier.
As Obama said, “Russia will always have escalatory dominance in the region”
A war with better armed Ukraine would be shorter.
We could make Russian dominance in the region history, just like the myth of their military competence is history.
After two years, it’s pretty clear that the west is not capable of doing anything of the sort. All the west managed to achieve was to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people died, and that Ukraine lost large parts of its territory in the process. We now have admissions from Ukrainian negotiators that a peace deal was close to being reached last March before the west sabotaged it.
That would have been a peace deal that would have meant further hostilities down the line a few years later.
The main problem with the west is that they believe they can make a deal with Russia that they are going to honor. The truth is that Russia honors the deals when it suits them and breaks them the moment it’s useful. Any negotiation is and will always be seen as weakness from the Russian side.
As their propagandist said “We are Russian. We want the world. All of it if possible.”
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
nations are not forcer to join nato
🤡
LOL TANKIE CRYING
NATO is a defense agreement. I know I’m on a Russian-apologist instance, but you guys are huffing Russian glue every time you parrot the propaganda of NATO being a threat to Russia.
By definition, NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia threatens to expand, full stop.
NATO is an aggressive alliance that has invaded and destroyed numerous countries. The fact that you keep pretending that it’s a defensive alliance just shows how utterly dishonest you are.
Want to share a source on that? Or are you making shit up?
The actual truth is that it’s NATO that’s been constantly expanding towards Russia. It’s also NATO that’s been invading and destroying countries since the end of USSR. Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia being some prominent examples.
False equivalence. Former USSR countries that joined NATO, did so to protect themselves from future Russian aggression. Like the one we now see in Ukraine. Intervention in Yugoslavia was to prevent atrocities and Syria and Libya had their own problems and dictatorships, which Russia tried to prop up and the West wanted to end.
Meanwhile, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Western leaders? Name them.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
Because Russia attacked them.
Now, thanks to western “help”, Ukraine will lose far more territory than it would have if the deal was done last year, and it may even cease to exist as a state. I can’t wait for you to explain how this actually helps people of Ukraine.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
False equivalence.
It’s not.
Because Russia attacked them.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
It is in fact the opposite. No neutral country stays that way for long when Russia wants it’s territory.
I see you have problems with reading comprehension.
If the West had not helped, there would be no Ukraine either. We would be condemning them to a decade of guerilla warfare and oppression. Emboldened by his victory, Putin would look further west.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Ukrainians now fight Russia, both sides are getting exhausted and it all depends on what help Ukraine gets. Your magical peace treaty would just mean Russia trying this again in 5 years or less.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
You could have used the same arguments to make peace with the Nazis in 1941 and the world would only be worse for it.
Now that’s what actual false equivalence looks like.
No, Ukraine has been engaged in atrocities in Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.
Russian propaganda talking point.
If the west didn’t run a coup to overthrow a democratically elected government then there would’ve been no troubles in Ukraine. Period.
Euromaidan was not a coup.
That’s complete and utter nonsense, and even western media now admits this.
Cite sources for the first point and military strategy analysts for the second.
