A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Europe is about to learn the deveststing reality of your home being picked apart in peace deals or whatever by foreign superpowers without any real say. I don’t feel bad for Ukraine in the slightest, they supported Israel since the early days, and felt no remorse, I feel no remorse if all of Ukraine was annexed
I’m pretty sure Ukraine is already used to being invaded and picked apart by superpowers without any real say
By superpowers plural? Today yeah, 3 years ago, also sorta yeah but more hidden. Besides Ukraine wants to be aligned with the west and now America and Russia are the only two who have any say
I was thinking more about their history of being occupied for the last millennium, invaded by the mongols, then occupied and partitioned by many states, including the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, the Ottomans, the Austrians, then finally conquered by the Russian tzars, then having their independence dreams being shattered by the Soviets, then being invaded by the Nazis and now by Russian Federation, with the latest nail being Trump’s actions.
So yeah, superpowers plural
that is because zelensky and europe don’t want peace.
I could believe that of any major country directly profiting from this. But what’s your reliable source for all that, especially Zelenskyy?
i consider chas freeman to be my most reliable western source, but i’m sure there are others.
I meant something more substantial like a link that expands on this instead of some name drop.
https://chasfreeman.net/category/ukraine/ here are 5 speeches on ukraine.
“NATO expansion was legal but predictably provocative. Russia’s response was entirely predictable, if illegal, and has proven very costly to it. Ukraine’s de facto military integration into NATO has resulted in its devastation.”
From your suggested reading, this stood out to me. The crux of any argument in Russia’s favour seems to be that they were unhappy at the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus felt justified acting preemptively. But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make, so any aggression on their part is not defensible on those grounds, in my opinion.
But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make
Literally what are you smoking. Look at reality. Tell me they weren’t in a position to make that demand now that they’ve asserted themselves.
It’s fucking amazing the shit people from your instance will say.
Firstly, basing your opinion of someone on the instance they signed up with is…interesting.
Secondly, I didn’t mean that in the sense of they literally couldn’t make the demand, but that Russia demanded Ukraine not join NATO, despite having no standing to make such a demand. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, they didn’t need permission from Russia. Even the quoted article acknowledges that Russia had no grounds for an invasion, and it’s generally in support of Russia’s position.
