Not just that but Ukraine is not doing what’s best for her by trying to get out of an abusive relationship. She should know her man will destroy her if she tries to leave and therefore obviously she’s better off staying married.
It’s the kind of logic that pseudo leftists are aghast when used in any other situation except when it involves Russia or China.
Much clearer!
Girls should be allowed and encouraged to change pimps when they are being mistreated.
I don’t disagree but when your pimp who is also your neighbor is threatening to beat the crap out of you if you don’t listen to him you might not have an option to be on your own. 
What seems to be undisputed in all this so far in this is that Ukraine is a wh… sex worker? Seems harsh.
And stereotypical too -_-
Ukraine isn’t being “mistreated”, she’s being actively raped. The West, watching this happen, is saying “hey cut that out or we won’t trade as much with you”. Its honestly pathetic. I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m not giving up my cozy nerdy life to go fight anywhere, but we can at least start by not being completely delusional about how bad things actually are.
Countries ain’t shit but hoes and tricks.
i don’t know what political opinions you are consuming, but this sort of opinion is commonly spun on pro-putin russian media. why are you repeating it? it’s is both sides-ing wrapped in a pimp analogy, and in the process implying ukraine is a tramp. it would be kinda offensive to me, and i assumed would be offensive to ukranians and women.
the people of ukraine overwhelmingly support joining the EU and NATO. they have favored that for over a decade, and added that provision into their constitution. why don’t you GAF about what people want?
zarapochkaiscorrect.jpg. The destabilizing influence of two years of a worldwide pandemic has made the risks even more acute for any kind of conflict in the Ukraine.
Quoted to see if this ages better than your “Trump isn’t actually trying to seize power” take.
the EU would absolutely want Ukraine to join. it’s an additional economy the size of hungary and greece to trade without tariffs, and a more educated work force as well. it’s also rapidly growing, with lots of infrastructure yet to be built up. it’s a freaking no brainer.
once again, NATO isn’t an empire extracting wealth from colonies. it’s a mutual defense pact, which only means that they mobilize ONLY in the event an intervention breaches the borders of member-states.
who is the West in this case? the US is interested in containing russia. the EU has put on the table a pretty fair deal for Ukraine, and NATO is literally not a pimp, but a pretty large number of countries, each with their own agency.
It kind of is though. Or does the fact that it is made of empires extracting wealth from other states mean nothing in that calculus?
I don’t think there’s an inherent conflict between the US and NATO generally pursuing their own self interest AND ALSO Ukraine being part of NATO would be good for them. The benefits of foreign policy options don’t typically depend on the benevolence of foreign nations.
collectively, Baltics, Montenegro, Czech, Poland, and let’s say Norway and Canada, have more consensus building power within NATO than the “empires” of US/UK/France/Germany. But still this is an interesting question. yes, it is good to get bad actors to follow some collective treaty where the rules are solid and governance happens with some transparency. US gets credit from playing by the rules within NATO, even as it is repressing voters at home.
Additionally, I think NATO conduct doctrine is beneficial to militaries of each country. Rather than having rogue armies with maniacs roaming europe, NATO structure at least ensures that the power of commanders over other countries, and their own personnel, is limited.
Reading about military history is kind of amazing, even though it’s mostly one-sided accounts how armies are good. But regardless, the most successful military alliance in history has been NATO. it literally only invoked the mutual defense provision once (war on terror, lol) in its existence, and it has never been attacked by an actual army adversary until hybrid warfare of Putin started poisoning people all over europe.
NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but their individual sovereignty is unaffected by participation in the alliance. NATO has no parliaments, no laws, no enforcement, and no power to punish individual citizens. As a consequence of this lack of sovereignty the power and authority of a NATO Commander are limited. NATO Commanders cannot punish offences such as: failure to obey a lawful order; dereliction of duty; or disrespect to a senior officer. NATO Commanders expect obeisance but sometimes need to subordinate their desires or plans to the operators who are themselves subject to sovereign codes of conduct like the UCMJ. A case in point was the clash between General Sir Mike Jackson and General Wesley Clark over KFOR actions at Pristina Airport.[143]
The NATO Commander can issues orders to his subordinate Commanders in the form of Operational Plans (OPLANs), Operational Orders (OPORDERs), tactical direction, or Fragmental Orders (FRAGOs) and others. The joint Rules of Engagement must be followed, and the Law of Armed Conflict must be obeyed at all times. Operational resources “remain under national command but have been transferred temporarily to NATO. Although these national units, through the formal process of transfer of authority, have been placed under the operational command and control of a NATO Commander, they never lose their national character.” Senior national representatives, like CDS, “are designated as so-called red-cardholders”. Caveats are restrictions listed “nation by nation… that NATO Commanders… must take into account.”[142]
other than trmp once throwing a tantrum over NATO states not spending more than 2% of their GDP in US weapons, i do not remember when NATO was used for economic concerns. Most presidents stay the fuck away from tampering with it, for good reason.
I agree with this and I agree the US is going to operate solely out of self interest. I just don’t see that necessarily implies that Ukraine is better off not in NATO. That’s a leap of faith that seems to be based on just wishing this whole unpleasant situation didn’t exist, which does not seem rational.
lol, you must be tuning in to Russia24 in your spare time. “who will be the buffer?” lol. there’s no buffer between baltics and russia, or poland and russia. yet there are no USA troops there. there is more US presence in Japan, than there would be in Ukraine.
He wasn’t
no no, those aren’t soldiers, they’re, uh, merely agricultural advisors. Sure, Russia has soldiers in Ukraine now and that won’t change. I’m saying I don’t think they’re sending armored divisions rolling across the border.
But you want a proxy war then? I know you don’t “want” war, but I think that’s the predictable outcome of providing weapons, intelligence, and our own agricultural advisors. Russia will send more weapons, more agricultural advisors, whatever it takes. I can’t think of a country consumed by a proxy war between great powers where it worked out great for the site of the proxy war. Maybe I’m forgetting a rosy example.