“Because in 2024, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine. Let’s be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian ‘Shahedis’ are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,” said Zaluzhny, adding that North Korean and Chinese weapons are flying into Ukraine. Zaluzhny urged Ukraine’s allies to draw the right conclusions. “It is still possible to stop it here, on the territory of Ukraine. But for some reason our partners do not want to understand this. It is obvious that Ukraine already has too many enemies. Ukraine will survive with technology, but it is not clear whether it can win this battle alone,” he said.
Most people around here seek vindication over the genuine impact of saving lives.
The United States appears to have prioritized escalating the situation, thereby creating a demand for weapons—emphasizing profits over humanitarian concerns. Let’s be clear—the United States is not acting purely out of altruism. We live in a world where harsh realities often prevail.
Yep - that’s about as coherent as I expected.
A quick end to the war via a cessation of aid will see Ukraine annexed. There’s a reason Ukraine went to war to stop that.
Manufacturing a situation to dump surplus military hardware doesn’t meaningfully help the US - using what amounts to garbage and foreign troops to undermine a hostile state actor clearly does. There’s no altruism necessary here.
Your desperation to leap to moral purity testing and American diabolism is leading you to some atrocious positions. Fuck me - take a win when there’s one to be taken rather than throwing Ukraine to the bears.
The concern that peace could lead to Russia annexing Ukraine is valid, and it is something that good-faith diplomacy could potentially address. Simply sending weapons to Ukraine and encouraging escalation, such as bombing Moscow, only exacerbates the conflict. I cannot overlook the dangers of escalation, even if it is framed as assistance to Ukraine. The primary strategic interest of the U.S. appears to be sustaining the military-industrial complex, rather than pursuing lasting peace. My argument is that a permanent peace is possible, but it requires collaboration and a commitment to working together, rather than perpetuating conflict.
There was peace, then Russia invaded, then they’re was peace, then Russia invaded, then there was peace, then Russia invaded. This military doctrine pre-dates Russia in the region. How is peace to be established and preserved when Russia pisses all over every treaty it signs, and demonstrates time and again that they only value peace as an opportunity to regroup? Maybe you could remind us why Ukraine gave up the nukes that would have deterred conflict today.
If you keep insisting that dumping decades-old military garbage that would otherwise be scrapped doesn’t meaningfully aids the military industrial complex, I’m going to need to ask you how.
They keep attacking because there is no diplomacy. Russia and the US would have to iron it out. If there was open diplomacy and a strong NATO. What do you think will happen if they attack Ukraine again?
We keep ignoring deplomacy and point the finger at russia.
Ukraine surrendered nuclear weapons as a diplomatic concession - you can’t credibly argue that there’s no diplomacy.
With a nuclear deterrent either from Ukraine or NATO, Russia would be less likely to attack.
I’ll absolutely point the finger at Russia when they’re the one pissing on the diplomatic efforts, tearing up treaties, memoranda, and agreements, and invading their neighbours while threatening nuclear war and committing a bunch of warcrimes - how is this anyone’s fault but theirs?
The Clinton administration demonstrated strong diplomatic capabilities in 1994.
Regarding recent geopolitical tensions, it raises important questions, such as why Russia is engaging in conflicts with smaller neighboring countries.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that many of the gas and oil pipelines connecting Russia to the European Union pass through Ukraine. There have been allegations over the years that Ukraine has siphoned gas or oil from these pipelines, contributing to longstanding disputes. You are free to assign blame as you see fit, but I encourage you to consider multiple perspectives rather than relying solely on one side’s narrative.
You mean when Clinton negotiated with Yeltsin (not super-relevant) to not target strategic missiles at one another (not verifiable, and reversible in moments)?
To grab resources, restore the Russian empires old borders on line with long-standing doctrine, and to distract from domestic issues that would threaten Putin’s interests.
Credible allegations? This isn’t super-hard to verify, and even if it were true, it’s no reason to annex Ukraine.
I’ve considered multiple perspectives, and like a reasonable person, discarded the invalid ones rather than treating flagrantly dishonest propaganda and baseless speculation/fantasy as important considerations that need to be accommodated.
Where we differ is in our perspectives. You come from a noble place, advocating for the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and even the potential removal of Putin. While this outcome is ideal, it may not be realistic in the short term. Meanwhile, countless lives are being lost, and the suffering continues.
The United States stands to benefit the longer this conflict persists, showing little interest in pursuing a path to peace. While it positions itself as Ukraine’s ally, it simultaneously sends Ukraine into a prolonged struggle against a vastly larger adversary.
This war arguably began in 2008, when NATO promised eventual membership to Ukraine and Georgia but failed to follow through. Now, NATO appears to be watching from the sidelines as Ukraine fights on its behalf at the front lines."