Elon Musk on X - "Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder forever. They have no plan for success. Superficial empathy, not real empathy."
Meme - Lord Farquaad: VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY RETURNING TO HIS PEOPLE WITHOUT A PEACE DEAL: "Many of you may have to die... but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
Michael McCune | Facebook - "Well, son of a gun! My apologies to all my friends today—I guess I broke the internet! LOL. What started as a simple message of reassurance to Trump supporters—who may have had doubts after watching the Trump-Zelenskyy press conference—ended up stirring quite a reaction. But let me make one thing clear: Yes, Trump supporters made the right choice. Zelenskyy had one primary goal in coming to the White House: to gain sympathy and support from the American people and to push for Ukraine’s entry into NATO. However, Trump and JD Vance understood that this could never be allowed to happen—and Zelenskyy knew exactly why—but he made his move anyway. The reality is simple: Ukraine and Russia are bitter enemies who share a border. If Ukraine were to join NATO, Zelenskyy could provoke a conflict and then claim, Russia started it. Under NATO’s collective defense agreement (an attack on one is an attack on all), this could drag the United States into World War III. Since Zelenskyy despises Russia, he would use NATO’s power to wage a war he otherwise could not win alone. That cannot be allowed to happen. Through this tense exchange—and the subsequent dismissal of Zelenskyy from the White House—Trump effectively forced him into a weaker position. Zelenskyy has now lost face on the world stage and will have no choice but to come to the negotiating table. Trump’s ultimate goal is peace. But Zelenskyy would never negotiate from a position of strength. What you witnessed was Trump giving Zelenskyy a political spanking, making it crystal clear that the U.S. would not be manipulated into fighting Ukraine’s war. You can bet that their next meeting will have a very different outcome."
99.9% Of Americans Support Sending Mitt Romney To Fight In Ukraine | Babylon Bee - "The poll was taken shortly after Romney strongly advocated for escalating conflict with Russia over the ongoing invasion of Ukraine."
What the capture of Chinese soldiers says about Beijing’s role in Ukraine - "One explanation is that the men are simply soldiers of fortune who caught a plane to Russia to escape boredom and penury at home... It is plausible that there are tens of thousands of trained soldiers hanging around in civilian life with not much to do. President Xi Jinping has spent heavily to modernise the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) but he has also ruthlessly thinned its ranks. It is a leaner force with less manpower and more warfighting technology. That lends weight to a second explanation, which is that Chinese military intelligence is using mercenaries to collect battlefield information on tactics and weapons systems that the PLA wants. It has not fought a conventional ground war since 1979 when then paramount leader Deng Xiaoping ordered an invasion of Vietnam which ended in a fiasco. So real-time observation in combat is priceless. The campaign in Ukraine, with its reliance on drones, cruise missiles, air defences, tracking and interception, is a model for the sort of warfighting the PLA would experience in an invasion of Taiwan. In addition, battlefield conditions yield performance assessments which the Russians might prefer to keep secret even from their supposed friends. And it is clear from Zelensky’s statement that the six Chinese combatants were operating as an organised unit, presumably including Russian speakers for communications and perhaps eavesdropping... A third and less subtle explanation is simply that China is staging a brazen, barely covert intervention in the war. It has history on this. A US diplomat in Beijing once told me that sometimes Chinese strategy is as subtle as the ancient arts of war taught by Sun Tzu but “sometimes it’s a kick in the face”. In the Korean War of 1950 to 1953, Mao Zedong sent hundreds of thousands of “volunteers” to fight American, British and other forces under the United Nations flag who were defending capitalist South Korea. Among the mass casualties was Mao’s own son. China also sent covert aid to North Vietnam and to Viet Cong guerrillas in South Vietnam, helped the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia and waged a twilight struggle against both the Soviet Union and the West across Indochina until Deng called a halt to Cold War adventurism at the end of the 1970s. Its leaders are well schooled in complexity and state deceit. So they will have been unworried when the Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha summoned China’s chargé d’affaires in Kyiv “to condemn this fact and demand an explanation”."
Peacemaker on X - "🇺🇦 UA | 🇪🇺 EU | 🏴☠️ NATO: Yelena Zelenska is reportedly unavailable to the media due to a failed escape attempt. Zelensky's wife planned to flee to an unnamed European country. However, the escape failed and she is now under strict SBU guard. The alleged reason for the escape is a strained relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky and a number of unspecified political disagreements. Source in the image"
Where Is the Missing $100 Billion in U.S. Aid for Ukraine? - "In an interview with the Associated Press on February 2, Zelensky stated: When I hear that America gave Ukraine hundreds of billions [of dollars], 177, to be more precise . . . as the president of a warring country, I can tell you that we received just over 75 . . . We are talking about specific things, because we got it, not with money but with weapons. There is training, there is additional transport, there are not only prices for weapons. There were humanitarian programs, social, etc. . . . $100 billion of these 177, we never received. When it’s said that Ukraine received $200 billion to support the army during the war, that is not true. I don’t know where all the money is...
The short answer is that it is not missing. The funds went (mostly) to activities that arose because of the war, and all are accounted for. Some paid for sending equipment and funds directly to Ukraine. A large part went to activities that arose because of the war but were not spent in Ukraine"
Somehow, Zelensky isn't to blame for spreading misinformation
Politico: Trump allies held secret talks with Zelenskyy's opponents - "four high-ranking associates of US President Donald Trump held secret talks with Yuliia Tymoshenko, leader of Ukraine’s Batkivshchyna party, and members of European Solidarity, the party of former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. On 18 March, German Bild journalist Paul Ronzheimer said that he had interviewed former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who accused Zelenskyy’s team of steering the country towards dictatorship and undermining the rule of law."
Glenn Diesen on X - "Washington has likely concluded that peace is impossible with Zelensky in power."
Weird. I thought only Russian agents and brainless MAGAs accused Zelenskyy of being a dictator
Poland and Baltics to quit landmine treaty over Russia fears - "In a joint statement, the defence ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland said that since signing the Ottawa Treaty, threats from Moscow and its ally Belarus have "significantly increased". It is "paramount" to give their troops "flexibility and freedom of choice" to defend Nato's eastern flank, they said. The Ottawa Treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Treaty, came into force in 1997. It aims to ban anti-personnel mines - those aimed at humans - worldwide, and has been signed by more than 160 countries. But some major military powers - including China, India, Russia, Pakistan, and the US - never signed up to it. All of the Baltic states had signed the convention by 2005, while Poland joined in 2012... Ukraine is a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, although it has received land mines from the US during Russia's full-scale invasion, and in the past has told the UN that due to Russia's invasion it cannot guarantee it is abiding by the treaty. Article 20 of the convention specifically states however that a nation cannot withdraw from the treaty if it is currently at war. The UN estimates the Ukraine is now the most mined nation in the world."
Are other human rights niceties conditional upon the luxury of peace?
Time to bash the US again for not signing on
Biden-Zelensky-Putin: The roots of the Ukraine conflict - "I rarely agree with President Trump, but his latest controversial statements about Ukraine are mostly true. They seem preposterous only because western audiences have been fed a steady diet of disinformation about Ukraine for more than a decade... First, as recently documented by overwhelming forensic evidence, and affirmed even by a Kyiv court, it was Ukrainian right-wing militants who started the violence in 2014 that provoked Russia’s initial invasion of the country’s southeast including Crimea... right-wing militants overlooking the square started shooting Ukrainian police and remaining protesters. Police returned fire at the militants, who then claimed bogusly that the police had killed the unarmed protesters. Outraged by this ostensible government massacre, Ukrainians descended on the capital and ousted the president, who fled to Russia for protection. Putin responded by deploying troops to Crimea and weapons to the southeast Donbas region on behalf of ethnic Russians who felt their president had been undemocratically overthrown. While this backstory does not justify Russia’s invasion, it explains that it was hardly “unprovoked.” Second, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky contributed to a wider war by violating peace deals with Russia and seeking NATO military aid and membership. The deals, known as Minsk 1 and 2, had been negotiated under his predecessor President Petro Poroshenko in 2014 and 2015 to end fighting in the southeast and protect endangered troops. Ukraine was to guarantee Donbas limited political autonomy by the end of 2015, which Putin believed would be sufficient to prevent Ukraine from joining — or serving as a military base for — NATO. Regrettably, Ukraine refused for seven years to fulfill that commitment. Zelensky even campaigned in 2019 on a promise to finally implement the accords to prevent further war. But after winning election, he reneged, apparently less concerned about risking war than looking weak on Russia. Zelensky instead increased weapons imports from NATO countries, which was the last straw for Putin. So, on Feb. 21, 2022, Russia recognized the independence of Donbas, deployed troops there for “peacekeeping,” and demanded Zelensky renounce his quest for NATO military assistance and membership. When Zelensky again refused, Putin massively expanded his military offensive on Feb. 24. Intentionally or not, Zelensky had provoked Russian aggression, although that obviously does not excuse Moscow’s subsequent war crimes. Third, Joe Biden too contributed crucially to the escalation and perpetuation of fighting. In late 2021, when Putin mobilized forces on Ukraine’s border and demanded implementation of the Minsk deals, it seemed obvious that unless Zelensky relented, Russia would invade to at least form a land bridge between Donbas and Crimea. Considering that Ukraine already was existentially dependent on U.S. military assistance, if President Biden had insisted that Zelensky comply with Putin’s request, it would have happened. Instead, Biden lamentably left the decision to Zelensky and pledged that if Russia invaded, the U.S. would respond “swiftly and decisively,” which Zelensky read as a green light to defy Putin. Had Trump been president, he likely would not have provided such a blank check, so Zelensky would have had little choice but to implement the Minsk deals to avert war. Even if Zelensky had still refused and provoked Russia to invade, Trump would have denied him a veto over peace negotiations, which Biden recklessly gave by declaring, “There’s nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” That pledge tragically emboldened Ukraine to prolong the war in expectation of eventually decisive U.S. military aid, which Biden then refused to supply due to fear of nuclear escalation. In that way, Biden raised false hopes in Ukraine, needlessly perpetuating a war that has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands in the last two years alone during which the frontlines have shifted by less than 1 percent of Ukraine’s territory. The basic outlines of a deal to end the fighting are obvious even if details remain to be negotiated, as Trump and Putin started doing today in a phone call. Russia will continue to occupy Crimea and other portions of the southeast, while the rest of Ukraine will not join NATO but will get security guarantees from some western countries. The sad thing is that such a plan could have been achieved at least two years ago if only President Biden had made military aid conditional on Zelensky negotiating a ceasefire. Even more tragic, whatever peace deal emerges after the war will be worse for Ukraine than the Minsk accords that Zelensky foolishly abandoned due to his political ambitions and naïve expectation of bottomless U.S. support."
Germans show little inclination to defend country or trust in army to do it, poll finds - "More than half of German respondents in a recent survey said they’d be unwilling to fight for their country if it came under attack, and a full three-quarters expressed little to no faith in the army to do the job. The poll, conducted and released Tuesday by the German magazine Focus, revealed a country where a growing number of people want more investment in defense but are loath to take matters into their own hands. Only 32% said they would be willing to take up arms to “actively participate in defensive combat operations” if the country was attacked, while 57% rejected that prospect. A further 11% were undecided, the poll found. And 75% of respondents put their confidence in the German armed forces’ ability to defend the country in the range of little to none."
It is better for every last Ukrainian to die today than for there to be a tiny chance that any other European might die tomorrow, but Ukraine and the US need to do all the heavy lifting while the rest of Europe just lectures the latter and virtue signals about the former, while continuing to spend more on Russian oil than what they are sending to Ukraine
German army struggles to get Gen Z recruits ‘ready for war’ - "As a podcaster and freelance journalist, Ole Nymoen admits he enjoys freedom of expression and other democratic rights in his home country of Germany. But he would not want to die for them. In a book published this week, Why I Would Never Fight for My Country, the 27-year-old argues ordinary people should not be sent into battle on behalf of nation states and their rulers — even to fend off an invasion. Occupation by a foreign power might lead to a “shitty” life, he told the Financial Times. “But I’d rather be occupied than dead.” Nymoen, a self-described Marxist, does not claim to be representative of Generation Z in Germany. But his stance — and his striking honesty about it — taps into a wider questions facing Europe as it re-arms on a scale not seen since the end of the cold war... Germany’s armed forces commissioner, Eva Högl, this week warned the country was not closer to its goal of having 203,000 active troops by 2031, as the overall size of the armed forces slightly declined last year, partly because of a high number of dropouts. A quarter of the 18,810 men and women who signed up in 2023 left the armed forces within six months. “This development must be stopped and reversed as a matter of urgency,” Högl said. A Bundeswehr spokesperson told the FT the military had taken steps to try to stem the outflow of young recruits, including a notice period to avoid “last-minute, emotional” decisions. But one senior army commander said members of Generation Z — renowned in the business world for their efforts to reshape corporate culture — were also going into the armed forces with different ideas and outlooks. “People are vulnerable, they cry easily,” he said. “They talk about work-life balance.”... the question remains to what extent populations in Europe are willing to accept the calls to join up for the armed forces in much larger numbers. Sophia Besch, senior fellow at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that although the threat perception among the European public was changing rapidly, “the next step [that governments are asking citizens to make] is a huge one — I want to fight for my country and I want my children to fight for my country.” Besch said nations including Germany lacked that deep trust and the shared understanding of threat between citizens and government that had been forged in places such as Finland, which is famed for its decades-long focus on preparedness for an attack from Russia. Moreover, she added, in the worst-case scenario, young Germans would most likely not be asked to fight for their own country but for Latvia or another frontline nation. “We have to ask ourselves what young Germans would be willing to fight for today. Is it Germany? Is it the European project?” Since Russia’s full-scale Ukraine invasion, Germany has had a steep rise in the number of conscientious objectors (including both regular soldiers and part-time reservists). The figure reached 2,998 last year — up from 200 in 2021. Klaus Pfisterer, of the German Peace Society — United War Resisters, a campaign group, said many of them did military service years ago, before conscription was abolished in 2011, and had then been assigned as reservists."
Meme - "I stand with Ukraine."
"Be honest."
"..."
"I don't care about Ukraine,I just hate Trump."
"Thank You."
Saagar Enjeti on X - "I finally understand liberal foreign policy: They would rather the US virtue signal votes in the UN and talk tough about Putin rather than actually secure US interests or bring peace in Ukraine"
NATO Underestimated Russia Ability to Restock Troops and Ammo: General - Business Insider - "NATO has significantly underestimated Russia's capacity to replenish its armed forces with personnel and ammunition, a senior general said. Martin Herem, the commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, told Bloomberg that new intelligence on Russia's capabilities had sparked a reassessment in the military alliance, as well as a flurry of warnings to prepare for a protracted conflict. Contrary to earlier predictions, Russia can now produce several million artillery shells a year and recruit hundreds of thousands of soldiers, he said... In July, Adm. Tony Radakin, the formal head of the UK's armed forces, said that Russia could "at best" produce 1 million shells a year, per the Financial Times. The UK Ministry of Defense estimated in December that Russia could need up to 10 years to replenish its army. But that narrative has shifted over the past few months, with military commanders, analysts, and NATO officials warning of Russia's increasing capacities. In September, an unnamed Western official warned of Russia's ability to make 2 million artillery shells a year, per Reuters. And Christopher Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, said in April that despite significant losses in Ukraine, Russia's ground forces were bigger than when it invaded Ukraine."
Mike Levin on X - "My grandfather and the Greatest Generation didn’t fight in World War II to see our country side with murderous thugs like Putin. This is a disgrace."
Common Sense Extremists on X - "Would you care to tell us what country America partnered with in World War 2….."
Jack Poso 🇺🇸 on X - "MSNBC guest: We need to stand against Russia just like we did with our allies in WW2"
Paul Rieckhoff
Paul Rieckhoff: Ukrainians 'More American Than We Are' - "Independent Veterans of America CEO and Iraq War veteran Paul Rieckhoff told MSNBC to kick off the weekend he saw Ukrainians in many ways as more American than the American people."
We are still told that left wingers don't hate their countries
JD Vance on X - "Today while walking my 3 year old daughter a group of “Slava Ukraini” protesters followed us around and shouted as my daughter grew increasingly anxious and scared. I decided to speak with the protesters in the hopes that I could trade a few minutes of conversation for them leaving my toddler alone. (Nearly all of them agreed.) It was a mostly respectful conversation, but if you’re chasing a 3-year-old as part of a political protest, you’re a shit person."
Rob Jenkins on X - "If Putin isn’t stopped, all of Europe could succumb to totalitarianism. People could be jailed for social media posts. They could be threatened with arrest for praying in their homes. Rape gangs and child traffickers could run rampant. It’s too awful to contemplate."
i/o on X - "All these things can be true:
(1) Russia is the aggressor, not Ukraine.
(2) Siding with Russia in this conflict ought to be a source of deep moral shame.
(3) Zelenskyy is not a dictator, nor is he "evil" or a criminal in need of "amnesty".
(4) There is no apparent path to victory for Ukraine, absent deeper and wider US involvement and support.
(5) It is not in the US interest to deepen and widen its support given the risks and financial commitment involved, when these are paired with the uncertainty of ultimate victory.
(6) A negotiated settlement involving some territorial concessions to Russia with respect to occupied areas in which the Russian language and culture are dominant in exchange for permanent cessation of hostilities and territorial claims, along with a treaty of future non-aggression, is possibly the best outcome that can be expected at this point."
Stephen L. Miller on X - ""In 2014 Putin invade Crimea and nobody stops him." Zelensky is right.
- This came after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented a "reset button" to Russia's ambassador, and State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki took a photo wearing a pink ushanka with a hammer and sickle emblem
- This came after Obama gave Romney the "80s Called' line to the media and Biden said Romney's "Cold War mentality is out of date." and the American media cheered it on like a cheap dunk.
- It came after Putin and Russia shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet with no consequences whatsoever.
- It came after Obama told Medvedev flexibility after the election and not a single journalist thought to ask him what he meant by that.
So here we are. Russia and Putin happen when Presidents posture for the media on the world stage, and now there are zero good solutions for anyone out of this mess. The media can do magazine covers with onion domes taking over the White House and scream Mueller Report all they want, but that's how we ended up here."
William on X - "Biden was the only president to stand up to Putin"
Stephen L. Miller on X - "Ah yeah, that's why Putin invaded during his presidency after witnessing the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal. Good take."
The cope is that he didn't invade under Trump because Trump was his puppet
Batya Ungar-Sargon on X - "The only reason Ukraine got a blank check in the first place was because the Democrats blamed Putin for Trump's 2016 victory. The elite worship of Zelensky has always been the mirror image of their loathing of Trump and the populist working class revolt he represents."
Meme - *Zelensky trolley problem*
"You can stop the tram at any moment, but you refuse because you need guarantees that it won't start moving again in a few years"
DataRepublican (small r) on X - "Does anyone else find it deeply unsettling that the primary argument for prolonging the war in Ukraine is purely emotional? The loudest voices advocating for continued conflict are the same hawkish figures who pushed for interventions in Iraq and Syria—people hailed as foreign policy experts and respected leaders. Yet, their entire position boils down to outrage at Putin. They offer no strategy for ending a war with a nuclear power, no clear endgame—just rhetoric and name-calling. If you question the war’s continuation, you’re accused of supporting Putin. These are the people shaping our foreign policy, embedded in influential think tanks and NGOs, yet they seem to have no intellectual substance behind their stance. The emperor has no clothes."
Claire Lehmann on X - "The strategic argument is that if Putin’s invasion is rewarded today, it will lead to a much larger war tomorrow."
mid gio scotti on X - "“The strategic argument is that if Putin’s invasion is rewarded today, it will lead to a much larger war tomorrow.” as I type this from the comfort of my Sydney bungaloo…"
Dhananjay Baijal on X - "What is your strategic argument for doing whatever it is you mean by the opposite of ‘rewarding’? Apart from fighting to the last Ukrainian and still losing? What exactly is the grand strategy that doesn’t start a larger war immediately?"
Thread by @Rquebus on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "One thing I've learned throughout my life is that fighting a war doesn't prevent war in the future. There's always more war. Being reasonably prepared does, however, often provide a deterrent from invasion or escalation of conflicts. Rebuilding Ukraine's industrial capabilities and the militaries of Europe's NATO members is an effective deterrent. Freeing up American forces and materiel from the European theatre provides effective checks against Chinese expansion in the Pacific and resources to assist partners combatting salafi and houthi brushfires in Africa, the Near East, and Southeast Asia. By contrast keeping Ukraine a heavily subsidized bleeding shell crater accomplishes nothing strategically. Allowing the war to push to its natural conclusion would increase Putin's status at home and internationally. A full scale counter invasion is never going to be in the cards both due to nuclear deterrent and tepid support for offensive wars in the West particularly post GWoT. A brokered peace meanwhile highlights Russia's failure to overwhelm a much weaker but determined adversary and the costs of Putin's ambitions. He gets to save fave slightly but is denied the laurels of victory. A closer US-Ukraine economic relationship would also place US interests within the buffer region between Russia and NATO member states (a deterrent in itself given two centuries of American banana republic policies) and a chance at the same kind if strong economic expansion that has allowed Israel to survive in a sea of adversaries for around seventy years. There's a lot of potential in a well-worked peace deal."
PG 2022 on X - "Well if they try it again in the future, you're in the same spot or if you grind out another 2-3 years and lose another hundred thousand men but get them to stop, they still can start again in the future. The only reason you should continue this is if you could defeat the Russians and have power over them to prevent it in the future, but they can't. So you save lives now, and work on figuring out how to prevent it again in the future."
Tom Joanides on X - "In peace all sides are rewarded. What’s your point? The war must continue because peace also benefits Russia? Funding the forced conscription of a generation of young people to be sent to their deaths and escalating a regional territorial dispute to the brink of world war is beyond grotesque."
FALCO 🇦🇺🇳🇿 on X - "It’s not even about not rewarding Putin. The Russians will make gains from this, the important part is making sure that the Russians don’t think it was worth it. They need to see this as a loss, regardless of what they gain, so that their strategic calculus changes."
I am told that peace now without returning to pre-2022 borders is "rolling over". Apparently 3 years of war is not punishing
Klitschko says Ukraine is turning authoritarian as conflict with Zelensky persists - "Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko has told Der Spiegel that Ukraine is moving towards authoritarianism, seemingly making a veiled criticism of President Volodymyr Zelensky. "At some point we will no longer be any different from Russia, where everything depends on the whim of one man," the former heavyweight boxing champion said"
From 2023. Time to jail Klitschko for being a Russian sympathiser!
Zelensky showing ‘authoritarian traits’, says Swiss intelligence report - "The assessment, written in the wake of the attempted mutiny in Russia by the Wagner mercenary group and seen by the newspaper NZZ am Sonntag, claims that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is attempting to politically eliminate his biggest rival, Kyiv mayor Vitaly Klitschko, ahead of next year’s election. The claim, it added, is based on “credible intelligence.” “In his attempt to eliminate Klitschko politically, Zelensky is showing authoritarian traits,” write the report’s authors. “It is very likely that Western states will exert pressure on the president and his entourage in this regard.”... Ulrich Schmid, a professor of Eastern European studies at the University of St. Gallen, told the newspaper that Zelensky had nothing to worry about for his re-election. “Since his courageous decision not to leave Kyiv in the face of the Russian attack, he enjoys a lot of credit among the population,” he said. But, he added, some of the ingredients for democracy in the country were missing. “What are the prerequisites of a functioning democracy?” said Schmid. “Independent parties and a free press. Neither is present in Ukraine at the moment.”... “[Our] solidarity is not with [Zelensky] as a person or a political party, but with the Ukrainian people who are under attack,” said Cédric Wermuth, co-president of the Social Democrats. “There are good reasons to criticise Zelensky’s domestic policy, especially from a left-wing perspective.”"
From 2023. The Swiss intelligence service was infiltrated by Russian agents!
Ukraine was betrayed long before Trump - "In many ways, the US announcements this week have merely exposed the contradictions and hypocrisy of the West’s decades-long approach to Ukraine. While many are feigning shock at Trump explicitly denying NATO membership to Ukraine now, he has at least been open and consistent in this view. The same cannot be said for his predecessors – who kept promising the Western security guarantees Ukraine craved, but without ever showing any sign of following through on them. Since the end of the Cold War, Western leaders have been making eyes at Ukraine, promising to bring it into the European Union and, above all, into the security infrastructure of NATO. And they have done so despite being warned time and again, often by their own agents and diplomats, that such moves would antagonise Russia, and potentially give a Russian leader an excuse to invade. As early as 1994, NATO concluded a framework agreement with Ukraine, in the shape of the Partnership for Peace initiative. At the Bucharest summit in 2008, NATO explicitly declared, at the urging of then US president George W Bush, that Ukraine (and Georgia) would become members. As recently as last November, the same promises were still being made. Yet, despite spending over 30 years dangling the prospect of NATO membership in front of Ukraine, and so heightening the prospects of conflict with Russia, nothing has ever come of it. Through NATO, Western leaders have flirted with expanding their institutional reach into Ukraine, while always baulking at the military costs and the potential consequences – namely, a direct confrontation with Russia. And so, the West has set membership conditions that have always been impossible for Ukraine to meet. In theory, the prospect of entry has always been on the table for Ukraine. But, in practice, the table has always been placed deliberately out of reach. Before Russia’s invasion, Western leaders, through NATO, were effectively provoking a war they didn’t want to fight. And since the war began, they have been helping Ukraine to fight for a future that they refuse to secure. It has been the worst of all possible worlds for Ukraine. The West antagonised Russia, lending an imperialistic Putin the pretext he needed to roll in, despite having neither the will nor indeed the military capacity to have Ukraine’s back. Now the Trump administration has cut this Gordian knot in the most brutal of fashions."
Ukraine: not a war about democracy - "The Ukrainian war is about the international political and legal order. It is empirically wrong to talk of a ‘war of values’ or a war for the ‘survival of democracy’. It is also normatively dangerous to frame it as such. If we want to avoid further bloodshed, the “West” needs to leave behind this narrative... It is, as Daniel DePetris has aptly put it, “a predisposition to bifurcate an extraordinary multi-faceted and complicated world in order to make sense of it”. But, as an analytical claim, it is empirically inaccurate and normatively dangerous. While it is true that Ukraine is “more” of a democracy than Russia, this does not make the war about that. Let’s start with the empirics. First of all, there is no clear evidence of an “alliance for the promotion of authoritarianism”. Instead, collaboration among like-minded, authoritarian regimes is empirically explained by perceived threats to regime-survival. Second, the democracy vs. autocracy narrative wrongly lumps together states with radically different historical trajectories, cultural identities and – more importantly – political motivations. There is as much variation among authoritarian regimes as among democracies... Framing this invasion as a war between democracies and autocracies is also normatively dangerous as it provides arguments to the aggressor who can easily use this narrative to his political advantage by creating the ‘common enemy of the liberal West’. It also acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy by bolstering a feeling of insecurity among non-liberal states. They could team up in renewed attempts of regime-survival... If this war is not about democratic values, what is it about then? A look at the responses triggered by the invasion demonstrates that this war is about the post-WWII international legal order... Emphasizing and upholding international law gives us a narrative about how to frame and tools to respond to an act of aggression. By ignoring its firm anchoring in international law, the misleading interpretation of this war as a “war for democratic values” will throw humankind back to the Middle Ages. For a “war for democratic values” resembles too much a religious war. It is here where the “West” is faced with an actual value choice: does it really want to be a crusader of democracy or any other value? Or does it want to uphold the international legal order? After all, international law does not distinguish between democracies and autocracies. It merely gives the tools and hopes for a peaceful coexistence among states. The stakes are too high. This war needs to stop. Preventing the loss of more human lives and escalation towards a large-scale war should be the utmost imperative. That is why almost any peace deal is a good deal. Even one that gives into at least some of Putin’s demands. Let’s face it: He – like any other warmonger – will not end the war if there is not some kind of face-saving victory for him to sell at home. A deal would give him a way out of the war, which already turned into more of a mess for Russia than Putin might have anticipated. And with possibly waning home support for the war, Putin might be well-advised to get out sooner rather than later."
Nuance and facts that make Ukraine look bad are wrong and only supporters of Russia, Putin and Autocracy traffic in them
Why the War in Ukraine is not about Democracy versus Authoritarianism
Russia haters framing it as Democracy versus Authoritarianism opens them up to those pointing out that there're problems with democracy in Ukraine, which in turns means Russia haters need to exaggerate the strength of Ukraine's democracy and how evil Russia is. But moral clarity, virtue signalling and grandstanding are more important than clear and correct analysis.
Half of Ukrainians Want Quick, Negotiated End to War - "After more than two years of grinding conflict, Ukrainians are increasingly weary of the war with Russia. In Gallup’s latest surveys of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible... Over time, support for continuing the war has withered in all regions in Ukraine, no matter how close to the front line they are. Support has dipped below 50% everywhere in 2024."
Russia haters claim that anyone who doesn't think the only option is for Russia to surrender. So why are they shilling for a nation full of Chamberlains?
Glenn Diesen on X - "Boris Johnson now admits that Ukrainian nationalists did not allow Zelensky to implement the peace agreement in 2019:
- 73% of Ukrainians voted in 2019 for Zelensky's peace platform, to make peace with Donbas and Russia by implementing the Minsk agreement. But then US-funded nationalists and fascists (and "NGOs" financed by Western governments) threatened Zelensky to abandon his peace mandate. These threats were made in the open but our media did not report on it.
- If the Minsk peace agreement had been implemented, Russia would not have invaded. The nationalists became NATO's veto power against any peace agreement, as our governments could argue that Ukraine decides when to negotiate.
- The claim by our governments and media that Russia would not accept a compromise and was responsible for the failure of diplomacy was a lie to sell a long war. If the opponent does not want peace, then war is the only solution and we must fight Russia to the last Ukrainian"
It is better for every last Ukrainian to die today than for there to be a tiny chance that another European tomorrow might be in danger
