NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
man you must be garbage at chess "ill just lose millions of my population, as well as billions of dollars in infrastructure just to .... prove my right to independance?"
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
"Ukraine wanting to protect itself from Russian aggression meant that Russia had to prove them right by attacking to prevent a defensive alliance that under no circumstance threatens Russia unless Russia wants the option to invade their neighbours whenever they feel like it "
Just no dude. You can fuck right off with that shit.
I welcome our latest Alex Jones type of troll, we were sorely missing one of those for a more diverse pool of opinions.
In case anyone is actually worried that the price of gas is a) already a big problem or b) caused by Russia.
A) Not yet. Gas prices were often unusually low and unusually high during the 21st century. Currently it's in a higher price range, but we've seen this several times before and so far prices recovered well every time. In fact we just came out of a record low (both when adjusted and not adjusted for $ inflation).
B) June 25th 2020. That's the date when gas prices started rising. Note how far removed that is from February 24th 2022. Since 2020 it had gone from $1.00-2.00 (no joke) to $4.50 at the start of the war. Now we're at $7.80. This is concerning, but Russia has certainly not caused the majority of the rise in gas prices, at most they've slightly contributed to it.
PS: over that same time period since 2020 the US $ index has increased from ~96 to ~106, about a 10% increase. This offsets some of the increase in gas prices. I'd say the US has little to be worried about right now. Maybe later, we'll see. The € is also doing well in a similar way.
I still don't know why Germany decided to shutdown their nuclear plants so abruptly. Also I'm wondering why the prosecution is not interested in people like Schroeder and Merkel, but that is for the German citizens to figure out.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
man you must be garbage at chess "ill just lose millions of my population, as well as billions of dollars in infrastructure just to .... prove my right to independance?"
It's not about my chess level, what you said seems irrelevant to the topic. It's about the advisor and therefor most likely the whole Ukraine gorvenrnent knew that Russia saw Ukraine joining Nato as a threat and would attack before that timing. He predicted precisily the timing and overall war scenario since 2019 in a public interview. It seems that tour interpretation is similar with what the guys expressed. Have you had any personal issue with it?
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
"Ukraine wanting to protect itself from Russian aggression meant that Russia had to prove them right by attacking to prevent a defensive alliance that under no circumstance threatens Russia unless Russia wants the option to invade their neighbours whenever they feel like it "
Just no dude. You can fuck right off with that shit.
"NATO a a defensive bla bla..." It's a pretty text but it would be nicer to say it in front of Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lybia people. The rest is just a personal insult so I have nothing to reply.
Its not really huge since large parts of heating are done via gas/oil because of infrastructure, which won't change anytime soon. The powerplants in question only make up a small portion of electricity production as well. There will be some testing of the electric infrastructure at the end of august, unless it gets rescheduled again. Only after that there will be a final decision, though those powerplants where scheduled to only be phased out at the end of the year. So its not that much of a change, and also nothing is decided yet either.
There is some talk that it might be of more regional relevance for places like bavaria, which have been massively delaying green energy in their federal state.
Don't think Russia saying they were hacked is a good excuse. Also don't think China hasn't noticed the comment on Kazakhstan.... hacked or not.
A social media post that appeared on the account of former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev described how Russia should "restore the borders of our Motherland."
The page on Medvedev's VKontakte account referred to ex-Soviet countries neighboring Russia such as Georgia and Kazakhstan and was deleted within 10 minutes. His aide Oleg Osipov told the Tass news agency that the social media account had been hacked.
The message was still up for long enough for opposition figure and TV personality Ksenia Sobchak to post screenshots of the purported Medvedev post, which outlines a hawkish geopolitical vision for Russia's future following the war in Ukraine.
The post said that "after the liberation of Kyiv and all the territories of Little Russia from gangs of nationalists... Russia will become united again."
It also said that before 1801, Georgia as a country didn't exist, and that it was part of the Russian empire and that "North and South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the remaining territories of Georgia can only be united as part of a single state with Russia."
Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of Russia's security council after serving as prime minister, was president in 2008 when the war between Georgia, Russia and the Moscow-backed self-proclaimed territories Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke out.
After the conflict, the latter two declared independence from Georgia, which was recognized by Moscow.
The post Sobchak shared also described Kazakhstan as an "artificial state" that was predominantly Slavic before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It said that the Kazakh government was resettling various ethnic groups within the country, which "can be classified as the genocide of Russians," in an echo of the justification for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
"We have no intention of closing our eyes. There will be no order until the Russians go there."
"No one should have any doubts that the fatal mistake that took place in the early 1990s will be corrected," the post said, referring to the collapse of the USSR. "All the peoples who once lived in the great and powerful Soviet Union will live together again in friendship and mutual understanding."
"Russia will again become united, powerful and invincible as it was one thousand years ago," it added. "We will go on the next campaign to restore the borders of our Motherland, which, as you know, are never ending."
Since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, his ally Medvedev has transformed into a hawk and used his social media account to call for the dismemberment of Ukraine.
This month, he said a proposal to punish Russia for war crimes in Ukraine threatened the "existence of mankind," given Moscow's nuclear arsenal.
In sharing the post, which as of Tuesday had received more than half a million views, even Sobchak said it was a bit over the top from Medvedev and his account was likely hacked.
This was because regardless of how much of a hawk he was, she wrote: "He certainly would not touch northern Kazakhstan, especially considering his personal meetings" with its president, Kassym-Jomart Kemeluly Tokayev.
Meanwhile, Medvedev's assistant told reporters that the last post that he had published "was dedicated to the congratulations of military sailors on Navy Day."
"Those who hacked the page, wrote and published a remote post, will be dealt with by the VK administration," Osipov added.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#:~:text=US President George W.,to Ukraine's membership of NATO. "US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO." Strictly said I admit there is an incorrection in my post. Not all NATO members but only US - the no1 super power - the NATO undisputable leader - the EU protector did this offer. This correction will much more solidify my post with 4 characters: US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. I wont watch less propaganda as every information from every sides embedded more or less propaganda in a concious or unconcious way. Just read it out and having my own filter and judement. I wonder if you consider it "propaganda" those clips:
and
Pay attention at the way he used "whataboutrism" carefully and legally, not your randomized way of doing. In return my advice for you is read much more propaganda from all sides and perspectives, not just the western propaganda.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict.
This is wrong on so many levels...
1. Ukraine isn't a "new" country. You have to remember that in the beginning it was all called Kievan Rus, so technically the original center of power was in Kiev, not Moscow. Ethnically UA is like 80% Ukrainian and only 13-15% Russian so there's that too. Most countries in Europe can be considered "new" if you go just by their most modern names, borders and country names shifted a lot in Europe over the period of last 1000+ years. 2. Hard line separating Russia and the rest of Europe was always there, and it was mostly created by Russia itself, not USA. 3. What "old lands" do you speak of when talking about Russia and Ukraine? Technically Poland could lay claim to all of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and even Moscow as their "old lands", yet no one is actually doing that. 4. EU are not reluctant and have a lot to gain from this conflict. 5. The war wasn't set up and prepared by both sides. Ukraine knew Russia would attack because after their 2014 invasion they wouldn't stop. I would like to remind you that fights have been ongoing in the Donbas region for the past 8 years so you could technically just call it the continuation of that.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#:~:text=US President George W.,to Ukraine's membership of NATO. "US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO." Strictly said I admit there is an incorrection in my post. Not all NATO members but only US - the no1 super power - the NATO undisputable leader - the EU protector did this offer. This correction will much more solidify my post with 4 characters: US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. I wont watch less propaganda as every information from every sides embedded more or less propaganda in a concious or unconcious way. Just read it out and having my own filter and judement. I wonder if you consider it "propaganda" those clips: https://youtu.be/DB6t7NOwthE and https://youtu.be/3Hj5JMYbD4Y Pay attention at the way he used "whataboutrism" carefully and legally, not your randomized way of doing. In return my advice for you is read much more propaganda from all sides and perspectives, not just the western propaganda.
I don't quite get your point.
You seem to be building on that weird russian talking point that countries joining NATO is an attack on Russia. It is not. Sovereign countries get to choose their own alliances, even if they are next to Russia. Russia would like countries to not join NATO, so they can fuck with them, like they did for the last 2 decades. Countries next to Russia want to join NATO, so Russia cannot fuck with them like Russia did to countries next to them.
Russia could just leave the countries next to them alone. That would be the easiest solution. The only reason that Russia doesn't like countries joining NATO is because it reduces their ability to threaten them.
Russia doesn't get to dictate their neighbours policies.
I add unhealthy foods to my eating habits because it's ultimately healthier than only eating healthy food. For the same reason I consume more propaganda rather than less to be overall better informed. You guys can have your healthy foods and unbiased news sources, but I'll have you know that's a very poor approach to things.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#:~:text=US President George W.,to Ukraine's membership of NATO. "US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO." Strictly said I admit there is an incorrection in my post. Not all NATO members but only US - the no1 super power - the NATO undisputable leader - the EU protector did this offer. This correction will much more solidify my post with 4 characters: US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. I wont watch less propaganda as every information from every sides embedded more or less propaganda in a concious or unconcious way. Just read it out and having my own filter and judement. I wonder if you consider it "propaganda" those clips: https://youtu.be/DB6t7NOwthE and https://youtu.be/3Hj5JMYbD4Y Pay attention at the way he used "whataboutrism" carefully and legally, not your randomized way of doing. In return my advice for you is read much more propaganda from all sides and perspectives, not just the western propaganda.
That kinda invalidates the whole "NATO is an American puppet" narrative, doesn't it? The US pushes for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO. A few other members veto the proposition. Ukraine never joins.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#:~:text=US President George W.,to Ukraine's membership of NATO. "US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO." Strictly said I admit there is an incorrection in my post. Not all NATO members but only US - the no1 super power - the NATO undisputable leader - the EU protector did this offer. This correction will much more solidify my post with 4 characters: US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. I wont watch less propaganda as every information from every sides embedded more or less propaganda in a concious or unconcious way. Just read it out and having my own filter and judement. I wonder if you consider it "propaganda" those clips: https://youtu.be/DB6t7NOwthE and https://youtu.be/3Hj5JMYbD4Y Pay attention at the way he used "whataboutrism" carefully and legally, not your randomized way of doing. In return my advice for you is read much more propaganda from all sides and perspectives, not just the western propaganda.
The fascist Vietnamese provoked the invasion by the French in 1984 by making an alliance with Imperial Japan. I will make no attempt to justify that assertion but I will keep making it over and over for as long as you’re willing to argue with me.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict.
This is wrong on so many levels...
1. Ukraine isn't a "new" country. You have to remember that in the beginning it was all called Kievan Rus, so technically the original center of power was in Kiev, not Moscow. Ethnically UA is like 80% Ukrainian and only 13-15% Russian so there's that too. Most countries in Europe can be considered "new" if you go just by their most modern names, borders and country names shifted a lot in Europe over the period of last 1000+ years. 2. Hard line separating Russia and the rest of Europe was always there, and it was mostly created by Russia itself, not USA. 3. What "old lands" do you speak of when talking about Russia and Ukraine? Technically Poland could lay claim to all of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and even Moscow as their "old lands", yet no one is actually doing that. 4. EU are not reluctant and have a lot to gain from this conflict. 5. The war wasn't set up and prepared by both sides. Ukraine knew Russia would attack because after their 2014 invasion they wouldn't stop. I would like to remind you that fights have been ongoing in the Donbas region for the past 8 years so you could technically just call it the continuation of that.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine You start with "Ukraine isn't new" then follow with "Most countries in Europe can be considered "new". I don't know how to argue with it. At least we can agree that Ukraine is one of the newest country in Europe, born after the colapse of Soviet Union. The ancient Kievan Rus are considered the origine of many countries, not only for the Ukrainian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus' 2. I consider there hasn't any hardline between EU and Russia when their interactions are mostly win-win coorperation back then not loss loss after the Ukraine war. But hardline is an open term so it's up to you and your definition 3. When I said "old land" i said from Russia's perspective. You said I'm wrong and asking a question, what kind of argument is it? And yes once in the past it was Poland land, so technically Poland could claim it as its old land. Technically and Old and so what? 4. For example? 5. And I would like to remind you the NATO member ship offer happened before the Donbas conflict. I don't see any counter argument in your text, just a different interpretation.
On August 03 2022 13:02 geod wrote: The ukraine president's adviser forsaw the war scenario and its timing. The war was actively setup and prepared by both sides carefully. The Nato did the first move by offer a fake Nato membership oppotunity to Ukraine. Ukraine also understood very well the nature of this offer but accept it anyway and then the Russia just followed. https://fb.watch/eFGcNOfPqU/ We have to respect the Ukraine here. They really needs this war to prove the right of their "independant" existence being a new-born country. Whatever the outcome turns out as long as it limits its cope in the Ukraine's territory, the US achieved its objective: digging a hardline separating the Russia and the rest of Europe, making the EU dependent on them even more econonically and militarily. The Russia would regain some of their "old lands" and population. It seems that the EU are reluctant actors and have nothing to earn in this conflict. Chess at its finest or to put its more relevant to the forum, Broodwar at its finest.
This is 100 untrue and actually impossible once you learn the basic facts.
NATO can’t unilaterally offer countries membership, all NATO members have to sign off on it individually. It is not in NATO’s power to offer.
NATO cannot accept members with ongoing territorial disputes. That makes Ukraine ineligible to join. Ukraine cannot join NATO until all territorial disputes with Russia are resolved.
You need to watch less propaganda. It’s like if you said that USSR tricked France into invading Vietnam by offering them Warsaw Pact membership. It’s just not what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations#:~:text=US President George W.,to Ukraine's membership of NATO. "US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. senator Barack Obama and U.S. senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO." Strictly said I admit there is an incorrection in my post. Not all NATO members but only US - the no1 super power - the NATO undisputable leader - the EU protector did this offer. This correction will much more solidify my post with 4 characters: US, EU, Ukraine and Russia. I wont watch less propaganda as every information from every sides embedded more or less propaganda in a concious or unconcious way. Just read it out and having my own filter and judement. I wonder if you consider it "propaganda" those clips: https://youtu.be/DB6t7NOwthE and https://youtu.be/3Hj5JMYbD4Y Pay attention at the way he used "whataboutrism" carefully and legally, not your randomized way of doing. In return my advice for you is read much more propaganda from all sides and perspectives, not just the western propaganda.
The fascist Vietnamese provoked the invasion by the French in 1984 by making an alliance with Imperial Japan. I will make no attempt to justify that assertion but I will keep making it over and over for as long as you’re willing to argue with me.
Lol I provided a lot of justifications in my posts. You should calm down and watch much more propaganda if you don't have anything else to contribute beside your bad joke.
EPT
