pull down to refresh

The obstacle to a ceasefire is NATO mainly USA
The plan is to sacrifice Ukraine to weaken Russia
NATO doesn’t have the stomach for direct conflict vs Russia
The Kursk offensive is an interesting tactic. What is the objective? Gain Russian territory?
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
in my opinion, the kursk offensive serves the purpose of continuing to receive aid money from the partner states and thus keeping the bond market liquid. always keep an eye on Ukrainian government bonds as well
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 6 Sep
I think it was more of a moral boost. The Eastern front is bad right now and throwing reinforcements at it wasn't going to help. By going into Kursk you embarrass Putin which is a huge win as well as gain a way to launch those crazy stupid drones that Ukraine has developed that is blowing up all those refineries and storage areas.
Kursk was interesting because it did really help out the Sumy region and recently Ukraine has begun pushing back in Kharkiv.
Moral boost was huge for the country though they needed a big win and they got one with Kursk
reply
I mean emboldening your enemies by letting them get what they want is a very stupid and we have plenty of evidence it is doesn't work.
Russia is already cooked and was cooked after a year and a half. Now its just well sad.
With regards to NATO and the US I will just drop this here...
reply
68 sats \ 2 replies \ @jgbtc 6 Sep
There is also evidence that diplomacy works. If today's blood-thirsty, war mongering leaders were in charge during the Cuban missile crisis we would not be here to have this conversation.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @TomK OP 6 Sep
Imagina refusing diplomacy at all like UK/EU/Neocons do. That's really a cultural decay and highly unethical
reply
The issue at hand still boils down to not only your side but the other. No one wants to compromise and when you are dealing with volatile leaders like Putin it is hard to take them for their word because of their history of actions. Europe as a whole I think is still burned by the WWII era diplomacy failures other failures.
This article from a couple of years ago highlights efforts made to prevent war and highlights how Russia was getting ready to invade its neighbor without reason but it failed and Putin wouldn't be deterred. Putin thought once the US had the embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan Biden would cave and didn't. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/28/russia-ukraine-biden-eu-when-diplomacy-fails/
reply
The provocation of Russia is unnecessary and dangerous. There is no strategic reason for Ukraine joining NATO especially a corrupt country.
reply
Wait so your telling me and I am sorry but I gotta try and wrap my head around this... that Russia invading its neighbor and slaughtering and torturing civilians is somehow provocation? It was only once this happened and the true vile nature of the crimes came out that you saw aid surge into the country.
Russia came through and on video just mowed down civilians man... that alone provoked the West into action.
reply
We need to put this conflict into a larger historic picture. To include the Maidan plot is important. And the attacks on russians in Donbas since then. The fight for resources is in most cases at the center of any conflict (Biden crime family was highly involved). Look what happens in the Middle East since they found oil and gas
reply
Lets not forget the Budapest Memorandum. Russia has loved meddling in its neighbors' activities and hated all of those who looked towards the West for economic advances.
Lets not forget he based this war on the idea that a person of Jewish heritage was a Nazi and Hitler supporter which I mean is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
reply
Calm down. You don't need to fight. The moto is: 'fight until the last Ukrainian'
Where are the diplomats, I ask You?
reply
Russia didnt want to participate in peace conferences soooo ya know you can only do so much if the otherside doesn't want to negotiate in good faith
reply
Ukraine is open to a ceasefire but nato won’t allow it.
That's simply false. One month ago russia offered negociations
A memorandum is a piece of paper that lacks the force of a treaty.
The Budapest Memorandum was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. It is a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, which means it did not require Senate ratification. The memorandum was designed to provide security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear states. The U.S. administrations involved did not seek Senate ratification because they believed the Senate would not approve a treaty with military commitments to Ukraine. Instead, the memorandum was adopted with more limited terms as a political commitment rather than a formal treaty[1][4][5].
reply
*Edit lmao do you really think I dont know how the government works when I work for Congress... like... what even
Ah clearly not someone who understands the Southern Culture of honor and how Ukraine is handling this situation as it would be handled in the South.
Also your statement is like straight out of a Chappelle show skit
reply
NATO expansion for Ukraine was and is a redline for Russia.
Crimea was a response to the color revolution in 2014.
The provocation was and is NATO enlargement.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, there were 16 members. Today NATO has 32 members.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 6 Sep
Lol is really all I can say... first Budapest Memorandum second Russia interfered when both Ukraine and Georgia began to look towards the West for economic and well social growth.
They exercised the freedom that they got in the USSR collapse and make a choice that Putin hated.
If Russia had something to offer would be one thing but Putin assassinates people weekly at this point and jails those who don't like him.
Population collapse is a hell of a thing
reply
Memorandum is not a treaty. Senate didn’t ratify.
The Budapest Memorandum was not ratified by the U.S. Senate. It is a political agreement rather than a legally binding treaty, which means it did not require Senate ratification. The memorandum was designed to provide security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for their accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear states. The U.S. administrations involved did not seek Senate ratification because they believed the Senate would not approve a treaty with military commitments to Ukraine. Instead, the memorandum was adopted with more limited terms as a political commitment rather than a formal treaty[1][4][5].
reply