Ukraine Crisis
The situation in Ukraine is becoming more dire by the minute. NATO is implying Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, whereas Russia denies this. Russia claims it will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO, as this would effectively put a hostile military alliance - NATO - right at the borders of Russia.
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices.
The situation is quite dire and could escalate into something very, very dangerous.
Here are a few links for those interested:
NATO sends reinforcements to Eastern Europe amid Russia tensions
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/24/nato-sends-reinforcements-to-eastern-europe-amid-russian-anger
Russian naval exercises off Ireland's coast 'not welcome,' says Foreign Minister
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/europe/russia-naval-exercise-ireland-intl/index.html
Pentagon reveals number of US troops on higher alert over Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/russia/547231-pentagon-troops-europe-ukraine/
Rising costs of Ukraine gamble could force Russia’s hand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/24/rising-costs-of-ukraine-gamble-could-force-russias-hand
Let's hope things don't escalate too much more. Welcome 2022...
Comments (18084)
That sums it up.
NATO has dug a nice hole for Ukraine.
:lol: Case in point.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes indeed. What’s funny is that those in the US have been fed a line of bullshit for 3 years with claims that Ukraine was holding Russia back or even “winning.”
Some related events in rough chronological order:
Budapest Memorandum: signed 1994 Dec 5 — violated 2014 Feb
Euromaidan: 2013 Nov 21 — 2014 Feb 22
Revolution of Dignity: 2014 Feb 18 — 2014 Feb 23
Little green men incursion: 2014 Feb
Russo-Ukrainian War: 2014 Feb —
Russian occupation of Crimea: 2014 Feb 27 —
Russian annexation of Crimea: 2014 Mar 18
Donbas War: 2014 Apr 12 — 2022 Feb 24
Ukrainian parliamentary election interference: 2014 Oct
Russia demands NATO roll back from East Europe and stay out of Ukraine: 2021 Dec 17
Special military operation: 2022 Feb 24 —
The Kremlin has been exemplary in giving Ukraine incentive to keep seeking NATO membership, however unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Sure— they invaded their country. That’s pretty good incentive.
Trump pledges weapons for Ukraine, threatens secondary tariffs on Russia
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/live-blog/trump-patriot-missiles-ukraine-russia-immigration-tariffs-live-updates-rcna218469
And despite the fact that Putin has already won the war as every "smart" people in this thread - namely those who love to smell their own intellectual farts - knows.
American Joins Russian Army For Citizenship, Gets A Big Surprise Instead
[sup]— Ed Scarce · Crooks and Liars · Jul 15, 2025[/sup]
American Father and Vlogger Tricked Into Front Line Combat by Russia
[sup]— Nick Pehlman · Kyiv Post · Jul 15, 2025[/sup]
[quote=DeAnna Huffman]Unfortunately, he feels like he is being thrown to the wolves right now, and he is kind of having to lean on faith.[/quote]
Importing North Korean soldiers, sending non-soldiers to war, ..., maybe they are running low.
Derek Burney: Disillusioned Trump tries to talk tough on Ukraine
[sup]— Derek H Burney · National Post · Jul 23, 2025[/sup]
Muscovites opine:
Mixed reactions in Russia after Trump comments on military aid for Ukraine
[sup]— AP Archive · Jul 19, 2025 · 47s[/sup]
I'll just echo Kallas: too much babble and delaying while Ukraine is bombed daily. I guess they're used to getting sh¦t all over by now.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/23/europe/ukraine-corruption-agencies-protests-intl
How the Largest Importers of Russian Fossil Fuels Have Changed (2022 vs. 2025)
[sup]— Bruno Venditti, Sam Parker · Visual Capitalist · Apr 1, 2025[/sup]
New EU Russia curbs may bolster Indian oil refiners' reliance on traders
[sup]— Nidhi Verma, Mohi Narayan, Trixie Sher Li Yap, Florence Tan, Tony Munroe, Jan Harvey · Reuters · Jul 21, 2025[/sup]
Exclusive: Indian state refiners pause Russian oil purchases, sources say
[sup]— Nidhi Verma, Philippa Fletcher · Reuters · Jul 31, 2025[/sup]
Besides, Europe pretending "business as usual" sends the wrong message.
Trump, escalating war of words with Russia’s Medvedev, mobilizes two nuclear submarines
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/01/trump-escalating-war-of-words-with-russias-medvedev-mobilizes-two-nuclear-submarines-00488493
This war is over. Ukraine can fight on and lose more lives, and Trump can blow smoke about it all, but Russia will keep the territory it stole. Sanctions and threats will do nothing. As we see with India, who will continue to buy Russian oil.
The children of Severomorsk are told that neighbouring Nordic countries support Nazism
[sup]— The Barents Observer · 2025 Apr 15[/sup]
Moscow threatens to DESTROY Europe: nuclear blackmail, calls for war, and strikes on NATO
[sup]— UATV English · 2025 Aug 6 · 9m:18s[/sup]
We want Ukraine, as a state, to cease to exist [...]
[sup]— Bezpalko Bogdan Anatolievich via Visioner · 2025 Aug 7 · 1m:57s[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/visionergeo/status/1953392267571433697[/tweet]
Seems clear that all this...stuff is for a domestic audience.
There's already been one attempted coup in Russia. How do you know another's not brewing? Russia recently surpassed a million casualties and 200,000+ KIA. That's over 10x what they lost in Afghanistan and they eventually gave up on it. It's not a bad bet for Ukraine to be thinking Russia will lose the appetite for this military adventure as well.
What moral authority do such comments have, coming from those who haven’t been involved, towards those who have skin in the game?
What intellectual depth can there be in remarks that overlook the complexities of international collective dynamics and the long-term strategies of political leaders?
People can find ways of convincing themselves of anything. It’s partly how casinos work. Wishful thinking. And of course there’s usually a modicum of truth — like the fact that someone usually wins the lottery, etc.
But this war is over. Not technically, since they’re still fighting— but for all intents and purposes, it’s over. Barring some miracle, Ukraine will come out with a crappy deal. No one said life is fair.
My only faint hope is that there are influential Ukraine hawks in the GOP who might prevent this scenario. But Trump is well-known for repeating the lines the last person who spoke to him has fed him. So after meeting with Putin, who Trump still seems enamoured with, despite his recent change of mood, that is the risk. He'll be outplayed by Putin, to Ukraine's' disadvantage.
However what I also find worth highlighting is that in Ukraine the political issue arises from the clash between Ukrainian nationalism and Russian imperialism. In Palestine, the conflict is between two nationalisms, the Israeli and the Palestinian. In Asia, the conflict is between Chinese imperialism and Taiwanese nationalism.
Yep. But he’s inadvertently advocating for a solution which may end the war. Of course Ukraine won’t agree— but to expect Russia to give up the territory it’s gained is also ludicrous.
I don’t see any real deal being made here.
He’ll blame Zelensky for not taking the “Great deal.”
He wouldn't be entirely wrong.
Genuinely, what reason is there to continue fighting? What could Ukraine possibly gain that would improve their bargaining positioning?
When a war is objectively lost, it's up to the leaders of the country to bite the bullet and ensure their soldiers aren't sacrificing their lives in vain.
It's very sour for Ukraine to be put in this situation by same the country that promised so much and delivered so little, but that's US foreign policy for you. Ukraine brought in a tiger to keep out the wolves.
Good point. But it’s still a hard pill to swallow for many Ukrainians. And I understand that.
Putin’s warlord ally flying migrants into Europe (via yahoo)
[sup]— Joe Barnes · The Telegraph · Aug 9, 2025[/sup]
Not the only kind of hostility (has come up before in the thread). Nice peaceful people, eh?
If they are unable to set aside emotions, they're setting themselves up to be sidelined, making things even worse.
Not very hopeful as Trump is a very lousy deal maker, and there's still the possibility that Trump pushes Ukraine to a lousy deal and gives everything on a platter to Putin. Not likely, but still a possibility.
Quoting jorndoe
But wouldn't hit the soft spot anymore. Europeans don't take anymore the bullshit tactics as they did earlier.
Pulling support for Ukraine and Israel would be fantastic. Trump so far has done neither.
As stupid and ignorant and as a major loser as he is, ending these wars or support for them is (in his case, accidentally) a good thing.
There has been a war of attrition and there's not even any more even any talk of sending new weapons systems (much of my previous analysis being how the "next thing" sent to Ukraine isn't going to change fundamental dynamic of a war of attrition that Ukraine cannot win in any practical analysis).
However, there has been a true break through over the last couple of days.
This could be the starting of a new phase of manoeuvre warfare.
Quoting Tzeentch
This has been true since essentially the first few months of the war, after the withdrawal of the Northern operation, that fighting to a better bargaining position is exceedingly unlikely and it has become simply more exceedingly unlikely since then.
The answer as to why? is the money.
Not just for elites but in terms of basic economic stability as well as soldiers getting paid.
In my view, people simply got used to the new system and people dying as well as the prospects of their own death.
A terrifying mix of sunk cost fallacy and defiance.
Quoting Michael Getman · Aug 16, 2025
Quoting Ola Ivanova · Aug 17, 2025
Quoting Alexander Rudko · Aug 17, 2025
Not much new I guess...
Trump could trigger a financial crisis in Russia — if he wants to — but has backed off from his threat of ‘very severe consequences’
[sup]— Jason Ma · Fortune · Aug 16, 2025[/sup]
Trump to back ceding of Ukrainian territory to Russia as part of peace deal
[sup]— Edward Helmore, Pjotr Sauer · Guardian · Aug 16, 2025[/sup]
There are two types of deal Zelensky might take. One would involve trusting Putin to honor the terms of a deal. Zelensky would be a fool to do that. If Zelensky gave away x amount of territory to end the war, Putin would simply regroup and then invade him again when he's ready. For Zelensky, the status quo is better than that kind of deal.
The other type of deal would involve UN/NATO peacekeepers to enforce the peace, and/or NATO membership. Is something like that even possible?
As if Putin has made ANY sacrifices towards peace...
On the contrary, Trump is making things quite easy for him!
What betrayal? Ukraine was never an ally of the US or NATO.
Quoting jorndoe
From what I understand, micro blogging social media without making a points is now against the forum rules.
It's just weak sauce to cite other people without even making it clear if you agree, if so 100% or then 99% or whatever. The people you micro-blog aren't here to debate.
Quoting RogueAI
If the status quo is Ukraine cannot sustain the war of attrition then Ukraine will continue not only lose people and material but at an increasingly disproportionate rate to Russian losses, as well as continue to lose more territory and face even higher demands from Russia later to compensate the further fighting.
So, the status quo is not better for Zelensky if there is no pathway to victory or even a stalemate; the status quo simply kicks the can down the road making the situation even worse for both Zelensky and the vast majority of Ukrainians.
Quoting Wayfarer
As was predicted since the beginning of the war by parties here and many other places of sober analysis.
This was the inevitable end result ever since Russia weathered the economic sanctions (which was always extremely likely, as sanctions have never in themselves caused states to collapse in addition to Russia preparing for this very war for 8 years, if not longer, and also being backed by China who can easily substitute anything the West provided; perhaps not as efficiently in all areas but having a pump that's 39% efficient rather than 41% efficient isn't going to collapse the entire economy).
What's remarkable is that there is zero introspection all these years later on part of the people that cheerleaded Ukraine continuing to fight, for Zelensky to rebuke negotiations in every possible way (that this made him strong and intelligent), and having no plan other than to repeat that Russians should go home, and when someone points out those aren't responsible actions and just get large numbers of Ukrainians killed for no militarily achievable objective, just retort some version of "But PUTIN!"
Quoting Wayfarer
As has been explained for many pages, international relations is not a game of brownie points.
You either have the leverage or you don't.
Russia has far more leverage not just militarily over Ukraine but also in the international system, and so (as I and many other predicted) once the West, in particular the US, has squeezed all the value out of Ukraine (from the elite perspective of wanting a new cold war to dramatically increase arms spending) it's going to want to throw Ukraine under the bus and cut a deal with Russia. Russia simply has significant leverage that the West, in particular the US, can't simply ignore indefinitely.
Now if the situation that Russia has the leverage to get what it wants (i.e. Russian elites) in this situation at the expense of Ukraine is lamented and equally lamented that US also uses it's leverage to get what it wants at the expense of plenty of people, then definitely I agree the whole nation state system is lamentable.
However, for those that cheerlead US imperial actions as "rational self interest" and "benevolent hegemony" and even explain how using Ukraine to damage the Russians was a smart US imperial move and so on, it is really difficult to stomach all these "dastardly Putin!" and fist shaking in the air type of comments, is simply incredibly hollow.
Quoting ssu
Ukraine is losing, Trump likes winners.
But the end game here has nothing to do with Trump. US was never going to risk nuclear war over Ukraine (they were always clear about that: No WWIII), and so the policy was to simply prop Ukraine up the time that was useful to do (mostly to lock-in a new cold war and the EU buying US natural gas, also buy up all the assets on the Ukrainian side), and once Ukraine starts to lose to cut them loose.
The only legitimate militaristic pro-Ukraine stance would have been sending Western troops into Ukraine to "standup" to the Russians beside their Ukrainian "friends". People who have no problem with the idea that's simply not possible, as the Biden administration explained many times "for reasons", have been cheering on the exact scenario that is playing out.
The Biden administration laid it out many times: no armour, no escalation, no WWIII, no boots on the ground, no missiles, no planes, no strikes in Russia ... i.e. no pissing off the Russians too much, and what would piss them off too much is losing. The policies that did change is always after Ukraine capacity was destroyed to an extent that changing the police, such as sending the missiles, would not place the Russians at greater risk of losing (would annoy them, for sure, but not the extent of losing).
What's the end point of such a police? Ukraine losing a war of attrition "calibrated" to lose (to use the RAND terminology), and once that becomes clear blame everything on Ukrainians: they wanted to fight and we didn't force them, and they just didn't want it bad enough and those clever Russians did, and we've even been paying for everything so they should be grateful, and so on.
Prediction made by me and others years ago.
The only counter-point to the prediction that Ukrainian "friends" won't fare any better than Afghani "friends" was that Ukraine and the US were more culturally similar (aka. white) and so the US wouldn't possibly leave Ukraine hanging like they left the Afghanis (when their brown, let them down, was the attitude that explained why what happened to Afghanistan was not a cause for concern).
Lol.
Putin won't risk nuclear war over Ukraine. His nuclear rambling has already paid well off for him.
And this has to do everything with agent Trumpov and how mesmerized he is with Putin. At least now Trump says something negative of Putin, but he still claps for the dictator.
Quoting boethius
The good pro-Ukrainian stance would have to give them everything they needed right from the start and then also to take seriously the threat that Russia poses and truly start building up European military industry right from the start. To be afraid of Putin's nuclear rattling was the failure. This game has been played in the Cold War already, hence full commitment on your ally fighting the enemy is the correct thing to do.Trump's increase of military spending to 5% has been one of the good things that idiot has done.
Well then why not just give Ukraine a bunch of nukes to end the war 3 years ago?
Why all this "no one wants world war 3 man" from the Biden administration to explain not sending in armour, then some armour nut not tanks, then not sending missiles, then missiles beyond a certain range, and not sending fighter jets, and limiting what can be struck and so on.
What exactly is your argument? That Putin's nuclear ramblings have paid off in terms of deterring the West from the kinds of military support that may end up in a loss? I.e. that what I explain is exactly what you're explaining, but somehow my version of the exact same thing is laughable?
Of are you saying that Putin manage to fool Biden and most if not all of the Biden administration, and even boethius of the philosophy forum, but he hasn't fooled you? You remain unfooled and would have not hesitated to send Ukraine whatever it wants because Putin's bluffing with his nuke talk?
And what ramblings? Putin rarely talks about nuclear weapons.
The deterrent effect here is having the nuclear weapons, not so much speaking about them.
Quoting ssu
Ok, sure, but then why didn't saint Biden end the war by giving Ukraine nuclear weapons or then all the good conventional stuff from day 1?
What's the sense of your argument? The current state of the war in Ukraine was determined during the Biden administration. Ukraine and its "friends" have been openly talking about their man power problem and man power disadvantage for a while now, which is not solved by more weapons even if the US had them in abundance (which they simply do not seem to have).
The weapons production problem, again, is the result of the Biden administration who could have executed a crash program of shells, and drones and other arms production to ensure Ukraine was flush with weapons while it still had a solid and substantial military core of soldiers.
A production program which, had it been executed at the start of the way, would have probably actually resulted in an actual stalemate with the Russians, but instead Ukraine has weathers under a shell disadvantage of 7-10 to 1 (in addition to being disadvantaged in every other weapons system, such as glide bombs, drones, armour and so on).
Western talking heads prattle on about Russia's arms production advantage, all while boasting of the West's economic might dwarfing Russia in GDP (when it's important to make the point that Russia is a backwrter and not a "player"), but don't put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that it's a Western policy choice to not produce enough arms for Ukraine to significantly hamper the Russians.
Quoting ssu
Thank you, we're in agreement.
The problem with the Western policy is that it is designed intentionally to not pose a serious threat to the Russians. It is duplicitous manipulation essentially optimized to harm Ukraine as much as possible to achieve other ends.
That is my issue with the Western policy since the start of the war, since the declaration that armour won't be sent to Ukraine, then sending a bit, then a bit more, and then keeping up the drip feed of weapons just enough for Ukraine to get decimated in it's war fighting capacity and demographics.
The reason the West was never serious (long before Trump) about supporting Ukraine is because had they done so, applied the military leverage at their disposal, that would have forced a resolution, as everyone would see Russia is being pushed to nuclear weapons use and then too many people act out of self preservation for such madness to continue.
But the goal was never to resolve this war in a way to help Ukraine under any plausible definition of the word help.
Quoting ssu
It is not a failure in reasoning to be afraid of nuclear weapons.
Quoting ssu
A game played to terrifyingly close to full strategic nuclear exchange (with far more nuclear weapons than exist now).
And again, post-Soviet Ukraine is not and has never been an ally of the US or NATO or any country in NATO.
The error in reasoning that has occurred is expecting a non-ally to do ally type of things.
For if not an ally what is Ukraine? A useful tool by definition.
Quoting ssu
It really depends on how the money is spent and also the broader impact on the economy.
None of the pro-NATO people here are concerned about how much money is spent by the West year on year and that somehow critical weapons systems run out and can't be replaced at even a small fraction of what the Russians can produce?
I am. There are two ongoing investigations (that I know of): one by the ministry of health and another by a corporation involved. I finished compiling all the private information I have about it yesterday.
Quoting RogueAI
I (and many others; I'm by no means alone in saying so) predict 3 years ago that Ukraine will go the way of our Afghani "friends" and be propped up the time they are useful and then cut loose as soon as they aren't.
There's never any counter argument presented to this prediction, just endless moralizing about how bad Putin is and how great Zelensky is.
The prediction comes true as even the pro-Zelenkiytes here seem to agree, and yet there is zero self reflection on what this cheerleading for Zelensky has accomplished these 3 years.
And even now, to point out facts (such as the pattern the US has of abandoning their "friends" once no longer of use, or that Russia is a lot bigger than Ukraine in size and population, and the policy is clearly to drip feed weapons to Ukraine precisely so there is nothing "serious" that threatens the Russians and so on) is somehow even now pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine.
I'm the only one here that advocated for sending troops into Ukraine, as that would very likely force a peace settlement and if done in a sensible way with sensible diplomatic options on the table would be less likely, not more likely, to escalate to nuclear weapons use. The end result would have been super likely a new security architecture to ensure peace going forward (what Russia wanted and so even entertaining the idea was "Putinistic") and far, far less Ukrainian dead and damage to Ukraine as a nation.
Of course I also explained that's not an option even being considered by Western politicians and talking heads, because helping Ukraine isn't the goal! They straight forwardly inform us the goal is to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. That's not what "friends" do, much less allies.
This whole 1 million Ukrainian dead saga is a lesson in actions speak louder than words. Doesn't matter what the West says, if they aren't going to send their own troops to a fight then it's because the issue doesn't matter that much to them; and both politicians and the vast majority of regular people in the West would all say without hesitation since the war began that of course none of their own soldiers should be sent to Ukraine. The conclusion therefore should be that clearly this issue of Ukrainian sovereignty simply doesn't matter much to the West and they shouldn't be relied on to "do whatever it takes" and deliver on other empty promises.
Quoting boethius
You don't think the prospect of a general European war against the country with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet might be a consideration?
It don't go so well.
Melania Trump Letter to Putin Handed Over in Alaska (— Newsweek · Aug 16, 2025)
Trump
• cut tracking of kidnapped Ukrainian children
• blocked aid approved by Congress
• disbanded sanctions enforcement
• opposed oil price cap at G7
• paused intelligence sharing to Ukraine
• voted against a UN resolution condemning the aggression
• provided Putin a boost in Alaska, red carpet too
• re-confirmed his odd affinity for Putin
Something's off, but what? Personality quirk or something?
Artwork by Alesha Stupin
As Nietzsche said, a man's worth can be determined by how much truth they can tolerate. This forum appears to be capable of tolerating very little.
But it is to think that nuclear deterrence doesn't work is wrong.
Nuclear powers keep their nuclear deterrence as the last defence and WILL NOT escalate recklessly with another nuclear power. Just look at Pakistan and India. These nuclear armed powers have now had two military conflicts under their belt when both sides have been armed with nuclear weapons.
In fact, the posturing between NATO and Russia here is a case example: The US / NATO got through the message that if Russia would use tactical nukes in the conflict with Ukraine, NATO air power would attack Russian units and targets in Ukrainian territory. Notice what here was absent: any attack on Russian strategic bases like in the Kola Peninsula etc. Such attack would be actually a huge escalation. The declared limited conventional response was credible enough, even if using nuclear weapons would severely undermine Russia's war (as China wouldn't like this escalation).
I myself have assumed that if Russia really would want to send a message with nuclear weapons, likely they would simply make an underground nuclear test at Novaja Zemlya. This would be observed, would create a panic and a media frenzy, but wouldn't lead to a military response from NATO.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quite funny when Trump didn't find at first the Finnish President who was sitting in front of him. Trump starts to show his age.
But yes, the Ukrainian president as Ukraine has the backing of Europe. Will that be enough, we'll see.
Add Trump's Crimea Declaration of 2018, and whatever.
So, rules out the window, and orange-flavored appeasement?
Doesn't look promising.
Anyway, there's this tedious list of oddities on Trump and Putin's relationship.
Trump wrote "STOP" to Putin, and "CRAZY" about Putin, on his platform, and then...? Back to the old buddy-appeasement.
Bizarrely, after one of Medvedev's ramblings, Trump sent two submaries.
Mentioned list of oddities, Fiona Hill, various Kremlin (and a higher number of other Russian) comments/reactions, volte-faces like the above — taken together — is evidence to suggest that Trump has a hole in his understanding, or something.
The Trump circus has seen some incompetence.
RFK Jr might be the clearest example.
Witkoff is another (via upolitics, via thedailybeast, Niall Ferguson via instagram or facebook; via cnn or tass).
...
A territory swap, an exchange, perhaps accompanied by something else?
"The moment of truth, sir, and sir." :)
The Kremlin circle might, maybe; well, surely they would consider it, neighbors right in the middle of Europe (yummm), though still at some distance from Transnistria and the coveted Odesa.
Trump might eye a few Mar-a-Hungakia business opportunities (Putin can remove obstacles :up:).
Hungary and Slovakia would be leaving the EU and NATO, presumably.
The rest of Europe might object; well, to Russian forces moving in at least.
Now back to the real world, apologies for the distraction.
Some of these predictions are (still) accurate enough, others are somewhat off:
Vladimir Putin Could Be Laying a Trap (via yahoo)
[sup]— Jonathan Lemire · The Atlantic · Aug 12, 2025[/sup]
That's what you call your wish list now?
Quoting Tzeentch
Shouldn't you too? Trump is Biden 2.0 , the Blob, and other imbecile buzz words of yours and your brain doubles.
Quoting Tzeentch
You mean the dude who died crazy?
That's what you see?
Not supporting the Ukrainians trying (despite getting sh¦t all over again and again), wrestling free from their old northern shadow, standing up against invasion + land-grabbery, sovereignty of Ukraine, calling out Kremlin aggression + bullsh¦ttery, defending democratization, resisting Russification (? Russophobia) + Russian regress/oppression/colonization, whatever ...?
Hm.
The hawks want war, and even though the people generally don't, they are so hysterical they'd rather see no end to the war than to see Trump succeed at peace - it's not the widows, orphan and the piles of dead that keep them awake at night; it's the mere chance of Trump getting a prize.
The story people tell themselves about Ukraine deserving a better deal is just a coping mechanism to wash their hands, because a better deal is not coming and things will only get worse. Doubly so if the US ends up using failed peace talks as an excuse to walk out on the conflict altogether - Ukraine is really screwed then, and will probably not survive as a country.
So this clown and others kept repeating in this forum since the beginning of the conflict that the Europeans are slavish vassals of the US, that the US foreign policy is the BLOB everywhere (from Ukraine to Israel, from Biden to Trump), that Zelensky is a corrupt clown put there by the BLOB to screw Ukraine AND still the US can't get what they want from their slavish vassals and corrupt clowns?!!!
They found a way to connect whatever fact to such evil intentions, those of the Great Satan. And yap about it. As simple as that. Pardon, as imbecile as that.
Meanwhile: "Dramatic Rise in Republican Support for Ukraine"
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/dramatic-rise-republican-support-ukraine
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/world/europe/trump-belarus-leader-call-putin.html
https://x.com/BelarusMFA/status/1956374401642865068
"Lukashenko says not going to run for reelection"
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/113157/
What's the orange president cooking in Belarus?
Feb 27, 2014 · Little green men (Russo-Ukrainian War) (— various via Wikipedia)
Feb 26, 2019 · From 'Not Us' To 'Why Hide It?': How Russia Denied Its Crimea Invasion, Then Admitted It (— Carl Schreck · Chizhov, Putin, Shoigu · RFE/RL)
Feb 20, 2022 · Moscow Has No Plans for Aggression, Has Never Attacked Anyone In Its History, Kremlin Spokesman Says (— Ilya Tsukanov · Peskov · Sputnik)
Feb 24, 2022 · Russian invasion of Ukraine (— various via Wikipedia)
Plausible deniability or unactionability for a while, until exposed or otherwise unfeasible, just long enough.
I guess there's no accountability for such lying, apart from distrust perhaps.
(The domestic audience is a bit more puzzling.)
In this case, all on Putin's watch.
Perhaps consider the critical thinking perspective, which you are clearly capable of on other subjects.
The first critical question is "why is it ok when the US does it".
The US uses its military power to coerce and if that doesn't work invade to implement their "national interests" all the time. As we speak the US has committed (either sent or sending) troops to violate both Mexican and Venezualan sovereignty, and recently threatened to take the Panama canal and all of Greenland, within the context of waging overt and covert wars all over the world.
Now, if you deplore US imperialism as much as Russian, then ok, great, we're on the same page.
If you take the next step of having a lucid view of things, the proximate cause of the war in Ukraine is US imperialism threatening Russian imperialism, soliciting a predictable response. If you want to argue the ultimate cause is Russian imperialism that was always going to try to take what it wants in Ukraine, then I'm not entirely convinced (the pre-2014 status quo could have perhaps continued for a long time; as Russia also benefited from the status quo in having a large Russian speaking voting block in Ukraine which served the purpose of maintaining the status quo) but I have zero problem accepting such a premise for the sake of argument.
For, when we look at this obvious clear reality we have two imperial powers and a smaller country in between that became the object of inter-imperial struggle.
In de-contextualized absolute terms the US is more powerful than Russia (population, economics, technology, satellites, military alliances and bases around the world, etc. with perhaps a few areas where Russia leads, like not having 37 trillion dollars of national debt), so on this basis it was argued that Ukraine can switch Imperial sides and this is a safe and wise move.
That is the fundamental premise of the whole war and events leading up to the war.
However, when context is taken into account, Ukraine is right on Russia's border and so Russia is the dominant Imperial power. As Obama (who had access to the raw in intel) informed us, whatever the US does in Ukraine can be overmatched 4 times by the Russians.
The idea that "Ukrainian sovereignty" is a a justification for fighting to a loss is simply pure propaganda.
In my military training (NATO military training) one of the bedrock moral principles we were instructed to follow, due to being common sense and the supreme law of the land by treaty (this is Canada where treaties like the Geneva conventions matter), is that the use of military force must be in service of an achievable military outcome; that it was not honourable to fight to the death for no purpose, and doing so not only caused more immediate damage (primarily to civilians who we're supposed to be fighting to protect) but also harmed the long term prospects for peace by causing further unnecessary animosity; for, not only does more harm cause more bad blood but it is easier to understand and forgive military action taken to achieve a rational military purpose than violence for the sake of violence.
While NATO encourages Ukraine to fight to the death, actual NATO training (obviously omitted from what was provided to Ukrainians) includes an entire multi-millenial war fighting philosophy in which the goal is to limit damage to civilians, international relations, and fight towards a lasting peace rather than inflicting vindictive harm on one's enemies.
It is the bedrock ethos of the professional Western soldier.
History demonstrates again and again that when the use of lethal force is used in a plausibly rational and justified manner, seeking to minimize harm to achieve reasonable military objectives, that healing the wounds of war is far easier.
War is by definition the breakdown of diplomatic dialogue in which differences can no longer be resolved by talking and therefore the facts on the ground will be determined by force.
How that force is used has an immense impact on the prospects of rebuilding a diplomatic process to avoid further warfare in the future. The reality is that rarely are two sides equally matched and fight to a standstill and then re-establish the status quo anti after a purposeless war that changed nothing and caused only harm. The reality is generally one side is stronger or then more committed and achieves military objectives while the other side loses, of course at great cost to both sides.
This is the actual issue. Ukraine cannot achieve further rational military objectives, and could not remotely plausibly achieve any further militarily achievable objectives since 2023.
And this is not just me saying this; General Milley expressed this basic war fighting philosophy regularly; for example:
Quoting Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal
Quoting Top US general argues Ukraine may be in a position of strength to negotiate Russian withdrawal
Instead of following in any remote sense this war fighting ethic carefully crafted over literally thousands of years so that the disaster that is war -- generally caused by delirious political leadership decisions on one or both sides -- serves a lasting peace to the extent that can be reasonably achieved in the brutal chaos of war and inter-state competition for raw power.
That is the issue, and if we take any similar situation where the US violates the sovereignty of smaller states for the political ambitions of its leadership, no one would be recommending that Mexico or Panama or Denmark fight the US to the death for no achievable military objective.
As a smaller state faced with imperial aggression, there's only 2 reasonable moves:
1. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then complete capitulation.
2. Negotiation and appeasement, and if that fails then limited war fighting to return to negotiation and appeasement (demonstrate there is a cost to the use of force and it won't be "so easy"), and then if that fails complete capitulation.
Now, the rebuke to common sense strategy from a small-state point of view is that appeasement of Hitler didn't work and WWII happened anyways.
But that's not the same. That is an issue in which other great powers (and far greater powers at the time the appeasement strategy began; by definition starting with appeasing Hitler in remilitarizing in violation to Treaty of Versailles) that can credibly enforce their will on Germany and are deciding between appeasement and war.
To make an accurate analogy, we must recast appeasement in the scenario of the Sudetenland crisis as the situation being no one is about to go to war with Germany over Sudetenland but will send arms to Czechoslovakia so that they can fight the Nazi's alone.
Literally zero historians have taken the position in this debate that of course Czechoslovakian sovereignty is a categorical imperative for Czechoslovakian to fight for the death over and for the allies to send thoughts and prayers and arms (in a drip feed manner that wouldn't really threaten the the German's ability to take and hold the Sudetenland).
Had the allies made it clear they aren't about to fight the Germans over Sudetenland but they encourage the Czechoslovakians to do so, THAT IS CALLED APPEASEMENT! just with the extra setp of a lot of Czechoslovakians dying.
And that is the NATO policy vis-a-vis Russia since 2022: appeasement, just with the extra step of a lot of Ukrainians dying.
Would any historian make the case in such a scenario where the Allies make clear they won't fight the germans but smaller states should, with some arms (but shhh, even then not too many) ... would not be appeasement to Hitler as long as they talked tough?
Because that is the Western hypothesis: that others should fight the Russians for our moral beliefs, and that is not appeasement because we talk really, really, really tough ... except when it turns out indefinite conflict with the Russians isn't politically practical because the Ukrainians will lose and also Russia has stuff we want, then it's predictably time to cut loose the Ukrainians and recast ourselves as peace makers the whole time.
This is the issue: we appease the Russians, handle the war with kitten gloves to make sure we don't piss off the Russians too much (so avoid nuclear escalation but also to avoid too much bad blood that we can't access Russian resources when the time comes for that to be profitable and not putting at risk LNG exports to Europe, or get whatever else from Russia that has become expedient), and while we do that we vicariously live Churchillian non-appeasement through Ukrainians in a war they can't win and is horrendously damaging to them.
But would that be the feeling if we just propped up the Czechoslovakian's to be killed in large numbers and Hitler still get what he wanted? Would Western historians be like "fuck yeah, we really showed him" in a scenario that plays out like that without the US, France and UK ever declaring war on Germany?
Because that's what we're doing today but packaging it as brave.
In case the subtexts of the above argument is not clear, the point is not to recognize we need to finally stop appeasing Putin and start WWIII, but rather the point is the reality is simply that the propaganda framing that Putin is Hitler and that sending arms to Ukraine is Churchillian valour (the propaganda version of Churchill that ignores his own Hitlarian racist genocidal mania) is stupid and a vast majority of people in the West know that it's stupid and just something that we say but don't actually believe; for, if we did actually believe Putin was morally equivalent to Hitler and Russian's to Nazis, then the case for direct war would be incredibly strong and it would be clear to everyone that anything short of direct warfare would be appeasement.
But even that far more realistic view is still based in the proparanda framing that the West would care even if Putin was Hitler and actually was committing a genocide in Ukraine, for we have in parallel a genocide in Palestine and the support for the genocide far outweighs opposition from our political class, and the idea of putting a stop to it through the use of force is not even a possibility of consideration.
Which itself is still a propaganda framing that fighting WWII was about stopping Hitler and his genocide, and somehow that Western ethos has changed, rather than allied participation in WWII being about pursuing Western imperial interests that include plenty of genocide both before and after WWII and still today!
Point is, if you want to go all the way to the bottom of the West's propaganda "Inception" basement (which makes sense if you've seen the movie Inception), then those are some of the levels along the way.
For our purposes here, the reality is that the Western policy is:
1. Bribing the Ukrainian elites (a regime ruling one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and the largest black market arms dealer even before the war started) with flooding in cash and arms.
2. Suppressing any democratic sentiment (which kept on voting for peace with Russia and against further escalation of tensions) through the use of literal Nazi paramilitary organizations goose stepping hand in hand with Ukrainian intelligence.
3. Using steps 1 and 2 to ensure Ukraine fighting beyond any plausible rational military plan in order to:
a. Lock-in Europe into US liquified natural gas imports for mad profits.
b. Lock-in Europe into massive purchases of US arms.
c. Lock-in Europe into humiliated vassal status for the foreseeable future.
d. Uncouple Europe from Russia economically generally speaking, but setting up US-Russian economic collaboration down the line.
e. Defeat the Euro as a competitor to the USD.
f. Clarify the zones of influence in the emerging multi-polar world, with the remaining great powers being Russia and China, with the EU "off the table" and little chance of a general peace in which the great powers become less relevant and are forced to deal with domestic issues.
g. Most importantly of all, defeat European welfare state policies and practice as a model of economic development globally by simply fucking up Europe generally speaking.
Why would European leaders go along with this? Because they are literally in a satanic cult controlled by the financial powers that are in a position to assert said financial power to propel whoever they select to the bureaucratic positions of relevance (and satanic extortionary leverage being the best leverage but more importantly the satanic belief system encouraging sacrificing the interests of regular people and your whole country for whatever madness is popular in satanic circles these days); and if not a satanist literally murdering children on video, then at least someone totally incompetent and clueless and 100% a coward if ever they did get a clue.
And the subtext of your subtext is that being the American-European lead West the greatest evil in history we Westerners (?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) should help Russia end American-European-lead West by spinning pro-Russian propaganda, right? And that's rational, right?
Reality and facts is not "pro-Russian propaganda". If the fact is that Russia can defeat Ukraine because Russia is bigger than Ukraine, and the fact is the West leaving Ukraine to fight the Russians alone is called appeasement, and the fact is the West has committed a disturbingly large amount of genocides and is committing genocide right now as we speak (arguably more than one), those are just the facts.
In terms of absolute amount of suffering caused, definitely the West is the most evil in History, due to scale.
And definitely we Westerners should feel bad about that suffering.
We should feel bad about the suffering of the Palestinians suffering a brutal genocide with on camera rapes of prisoners, burning and blown apart children, rapes of children we know about, starvation; really the most horrifying and humiliating conditions possibly in history, due to the essentially live-broadcast nature of the documentation of the horror.
Likewise, we should definitely feel bad about having bribed the Ukrainian elite into doing our dirty work to ensure the US can sell LNG to Europe at the cost of over a million dead Ukrainians (some estimates are approaching 2 million dead).
We manipulate and prop up the Ukrainians to take an absolutely brutal beating, dangle prospects of real help sometimes (like all that "no-fly-zone" talk, if you remember that) and the hypothesis is supposed to be we should feel good about that because we morally excoriated the Russians for following the exact same policies of Imperial domination we follow (just a lot more nobly due to pretty close adherence to the laws of war and not doing things like a genocide and starving civilian populations and lacking things like raping prisoners, and even recording the rapes, bragging about the rapes and defending the rapists)?
I do not take propaganda as the opposite of reality and facts. As I said many times propaganda can also be grounded on facts and reality. What makes political propaganda propaganda is the fact that people are pushing the audience to take political decisions based on a certain narrative about (actual or putative) reality and facts. And what I find questionable about certain propaganda is not necessarily about facts and reality per se, but about how propaganda selects and connects them to get to certain ideologically-motivated conclusions.
Once one is content with a narrative over facts for whatever reason then one can push it to the wider audience for political purposes by repeating and spreading their “gospel”, which is what you do and expressly intend to do. So yes you are a propagandist.
And also pro-Russian because OBJECTIVELY your narrative discrediting the West favours more Russia than the West, so much so that your narrative is parroting on many points Russian accusations and justifications against the West.
So, you are literally a pro-Russian propagandist. And my claim should not be taken as denigratory per se.
Quoting boethius
Let’s review your facts:
- The possibility of a military defeat. Its plausibility depends on many factors including the military capacity of Ukraine and Russia. One has to see the cost/benefit calculations as the war evolves and how other actors are moving wrt the conflict are other factors. Besides a military defeat or occupation do not fix political issues per se, especially in the long term.
- What people call “appeasement”. I think that your rendering doesn’t really capture what people mean by “appeasement” in the context of the Ukraine-Russia conflict which is more something like “the policy of making political, material, or territorial concessions to Russia in hopes of avoiding further escalation or conflict, often viewed as placating Russian aggression at the expense of Ukrainian”. In some sense the Ukrainians want to fight alone in the current conflict, they do not need boots on the ground from other countries. They need a military, economic and humanitarian support at the expense of Russia. And this request is rationally compelling as long as Russia is perceived as a threat to European countries and the US.
- Dramatic events like genocides. To my understanding, there is a legal usage of the term “genocide”, there is a historical usage of the word “genocide”, and there is a political usage of the word “genocide” which can overlap to some extent but do not coincide. So we can still debate in what sense you talk about “genocide” and about its explanatory power.
Now, once we converge on a certain understanding of basic factual assumptions , we can then debate of what follows from them.?
But propaganda can get in the way and use manipulative rhetorical tricks instead of offering clearer, more consistent analysis of facts and realities. I find that particularly nasty when careful analysis would be not only welcome but also kind of expected, as in a philosophical forum. Unfortunately, one can find early signs of such rhetorical manipulation even within your quotes.
Quoting boethius
I don’t know how you made this calculation. But if I were to assess something, I would evaluate bad and good, costs and risks. Not just bad as you seem to do.
Talking about “causing” is ambiguous because it can be used both to explain without attributing responsibilities and then also to attribute responsibilities. So it is possible that the West in some explanatory sense has “caused” certain things, still it could be debatable if the West was responsible for it just because it “caused” them.
Quoting boethius
OK your claim here is prescriptive not factual. Again I find it debatable, because the chance of following prescriptive claims depend on behavioural dispositions in human beings like the following: feeling bad about certain choices does not necessarily mean regretting those choices.
I’ll give you a dumb example: if I SHOULD save kid A and B from drowning and kid A is my son while kid B is your son, and I can’t save both. I will save mine and sacrifice yours. Would I feel bad about it? Sure. Would I regret my choice? Most certainly not.
In the same vain: if I SHOULD save kid A and one zillion of Palestinian kids from drowning and kid A is my son while one zillion of Palestinian kids are not, and I can’t save both. I will save mine and sacrifice one zillion of Palestinian kids. Would I feel bad about it? Sure. Would I regret my choice? Most certainly not.
What’s more is that even if you and many others feel differently about it, still there could be people whose feelings are of the kind I just described. And here is the political conundrum: politicians’ policies should be based on what people SHOULD feel or on what people ACTUALLY feel? Politicians are more credible and supported if they approve policies based on what people SHOULD do or on what people ACTUALLY do?
Quoting boethius
This argument is good for moral appeal, not for clear analysis.
History is replete of brutal ethnic conflicts (which were perpetrated not only by the West) and probably that’s because human beings do not only feel the need for peace, but also because they need social identities. Unfortunately social identities come with all sorts of social discrimination between groups. This is a potential source of conflict that can spiral into a vicious circle and very easily so, since any defensive move against actual or potential hostilities by other groups can be perceived as aggressive by those groups. This vicious circle can escalate the conflict to brutal and disturbing consequences.
So if one wants to minimize their frequency and intensity everywhere one would need OVERWHELMING DISPROPORTIONATE POWERFUL means to ENFORCE peace and preserve/fuel such powerful means as long as possible and against competitors everywhere. What historical form could this situation take?
For example, once an international order of very powerful countries (NOT only the US) are committed to support and enforce human rights everywhere (starting from their own countries) then I can find it plausible that genocides will become less likely than otherwise.
“Genocidal” conflicts happen both in Palestine and in Ukraine. However the difference is that Russia is not fighting its war for the acknowledgement of its sovereign state by the Ukrainians. Russia aims to have its own sphere of influence beyond its borders, be influential on a global scale, be treated as a peer by the US (BTW if the US is an empire and Russia wants to be treated as a peer by the US than Russia wants to be treated as an empire too, right?). Israelis and Palestinians do.
Quoting boethius
See, you started with some facts you likely believe to be “unquestionable” and then you conclude with facts which you can’t possibly believe they are “unquestionable” since they have been questioned. The idea that the Ukrainian have been propped up and bribed by the West has been repeatedly disputed (by me too). If one takes into consideration the historical evidence of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, one can find it rather plausible that Ukrainians had reasons to fight the Russians INDEPENDENTLY from any propping and bribing. This historical trend is not even unique to Ukraine, and it can be seen in many other neighboring countries of Russia. Ukrainians and many other Eastern European countries find Russia more oppressive than the US and act accordingly. And the war simply may have confirmed this perception. On the other side, the imperialist ambitions of Russia have also solid historical evidences (even prior the existence of the US) and are still cheerfully supported by Russian elites and intellectuals. So the propping and bribing by the West may not have enough explanatory power you seem to attribute to them. But you are less interested in analyzing facts and more interesting in judging and pinning responsibilities by carefully selecting certain convenient facts and overlook the rest.
From a geopolitical point of view, since Russia and Ukraine are not the only countries in the world, we should see how other countries position themselves wrt this conflict given their national interest. More powerful countries will likely approach the conflict in instrumental ways that are convenient to preserve or increase their power status for their security and prosperity, possibly at the expense of other rival powers. Now, since Russia can and did prop-up and bribe Ukrainians to make Russia happier the US is compelled to do the same to neutralise the asymmetric advantage Russia would otherwise have. Bribing and propping-up are tools politicians may need to rely on to beat rivals, still that’s not enough to explain certain historical trends or, even, to pin responsibilities.
See, so far my counter arguments are non-moral. They are grounded on what I believe “unquestionable” historical and anthropological facts, and neutral/pragmatic geopolitical reasoning. Even pro-Russian like you should be able to understand these arguments. And they should feel free to question them on their grounds which they typically avoid to do, because these arguments interfere with their rote counter-propaganda against the Great Satan. Their “analysis” is at best to find creative ways to link facts to the evil intentions of the Great Satan whatever they are. And then they call it critical thinking.
So my philosophical question to you is: should moral reasoning over the conflict between Ukraine and Russia take into account the anthropological and historical facts, and geopolitical reasoning I was referring to or not? If not, what is your argument? If yes, how?
Quoting Donald J. Trump · Aug 25, 2025
It's unclear what that will mean for ...
Russian attack on western Ukraine hits an American factory during the US-led push for peace (— AP · Aug 21, 2025)
What do you think will come of it (if anything)?
What should come of it (if anything)?
He's legitimate. (Can the same be said for Putin?)
Quoting CSPAN · Aug 26, 2025
According to one commentator, the Kremlin's push is like a Trojan horse.
• would buy them time
• would give them an easy excuse to withdraw from negotiations at any time
• besides, they could always claim that such an election was illegitimate
Seems safe enough to say that the Kremlin does not[sup]†[/sup] particularly have peace in mind.
Rather, colonization[sup]‡[/sup] at the expense of Russians and Ukrainians (and North Koreans).
[sup]† (some chronological evidence) 2014, 2014, 2019, 2019, 2022, 2022, 2023, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025, 2025[/sup]
[sub]‡ (some chronological evidence) 2020, 2022, 2022, 2023, 2023, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2025, 2025[/sub]
Defense increase seems to be happening, however scary.
Will war in Ukraine mark a new era for European defence research? (— Nature · Aug 17, 2022)
Europe needs to spend more on defence, not just pretend to (— The Economist · Mar 20, 2025)
French Automaker to Mass Produce MBDA’s ‘One Way Effector’ Missile (— DefenseMirror · Jun 15, 2025)
Europe builds for war as arms factories expand at triple speed (— Financial Times · Aug 12, 2025)
Russia might find itself well outgunned in Ukraine (+ deterrence works), but I'd suggest not forgetting more sanctions.
Pleasantries:
Chinese President Xi Jinping sends independence day greetings to Ukraine (— SCMP · Aug 25, 2025)
Sounds plausible, but let's not forget that amongst the Russian declared objectives for the war, there was/is the denazification of Ukraine, namely, the removal of "the “drug addicts and neo-Nazis” who purportedly govern Ukraine. So acknowledging Zelensky as legitimate counter-part for a peace deal would be likely seen as a concession.
SECURITY COUNCIL LIVE: Push for peace in Ukraine could rapidly fade if large-scale Russian attacks continue
[sup]— UN · Aug 29, 2025[/sup]
Quoting Yulia Svyrydenko
Quoting Dmitry Polyanski
Quoting Ondina Blokar Drobi?
:chin:
Well, yes, something doesn't add up, though at least it consistently doesn't add up; in this UN forum, I guess all that can be done is calling it out.
House Trump was silent in this round, as far as I know [sup](2025Feb21, 2025Apr15, 2025Jun17)[/sup]; busy at home [sup](2025Aug12, 2025Aug29)[/sup].
... 2024 Jun 6 · 2024 Jun 30
Fico insists on continuing to help finance the Kremlin's bombing of Ukraine.
... 2024 Dec 23 · 2025 Aug 16 · 2025 Sep 2
:chin: What am I missing?
EDIT (had some trouble finding the reference below)
Slovakia and Hungary call on the Commission to uphold energy security guarantees (— Slovak Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs · 2025 Aug 27)
Referring to a 2025 Jan 27 statement by the European Commission, that the integrity of the energy infrastructure supplying EU members is a matter of security for the entire EU, Blanár calls Ukraine's attack on Russian oil pipelines unacceptable.
Some Slovak press apparently wasn't impressed by recent events where Fico met with Putin:
Robert Fico was surrounded by dictators from all over the world in China. They celebrated the end of World War II (— Aktuality · 2025 Sep 2)
The date given was Sep 10, 2025.
Colonization.
[sup]— Donald J. Trump · Sep 13, 2025[/sup]
Orbán and Fico, presumably? Erdo?an? When might we expect something from those folks anyway? (Also Exxon, eggs?)
No (again).
The track record kind of renders such promises null and void. Something else might help.
Omissions also tell something: Putin / the Kremlin, India, perhaps Europe or the EU, ...
The post reads a bit like an(other) vacuous promise, be it due to dependencies/conditions or deflection. Something unspoken is going on. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/21/africa-the-new-frontline-between-the-west-and-russia_6719110_4.html
Not cool. I guess they feel free to keep on going.
Looking back, both have also claimed to be peaceful, pro-peace.
NATO, EU declared war on Russia through Ukraine, directly participate in it — Lavrov :down:
[sup]— TASS · Sep 25, 2025[/sup]
Europe has never been so close to the start of World War III: Zakharova stated that Ukraine plans to strike NATO countries with Russian drones :down:
[sup]— Ukrainian National News · Sep 26, 2025[/sup]
I'm not sure how accurate the following note is. (Anyone?) Supposing it's accurate enough, it becomes a worry that the Kremlin circle won't negotiate anything without some sort of victory to show at home to carry them through. (Including a worry for Russians.) I guess this concern is not particularly new.
As an aside, propaganda channels have started talking about Odesa, which is in relative vicinity of Transnistria.
So, what you're about to see is part one of my interview with Branoslav Slanchev. Uh, and he he's a political scientist and honestly, this was like the most aha uh interview that I've ever done with anyone. It's just like he lays things out. I'm going to do it in two parts. So, this is part one. So, here we go.[/quote]
https://theins.press/en/politics/285889
The Putinistas continue their raving and rambling to whip up Russians:
Putin’s propaganda flips reality on flights over NATO nations, as Russian public tires of war
[sup]— Eva Hartog · POLITICO · Oct 1, 2025[/sup]
Paraphrasing, they're under dire threat from Finland, Poland, and whomever else, NATO, "the West", ...
They don't talk much about the threat posed by the daily bombings of Ukraine (nor of whatever other hostilities (incursion, election interference, ai/chatbot pollution + dis/mal/misinformation campaigns, sabotage, migrant abuse)).
Has anything changed to the Kremlin?
I think China has just leased half of Siberia for 50 years for tuppence ha'penny. I doubt if there will be anyone to claim it back when the lease is up. I think Russia is close to collapse.