Ukraine needs a guaranteed security measure to prevent Russia from attacking again. It’s a stop gap to a more permanent solution. Either NATO membership or Nukes.
They had a security guarantee and it stood for 20 years. Then the USA finally made good on Clinton’s duplicitous plan to make Ukraine a NATO country and the security guarantee evaporated. Russia has been so consistent on this point for 30 years it’s amazing that the propaganda engine has made it impossible to talk about it in the US.
So what you’re saying is, there is nothing wrong with attacking Russia as they consistently provoke other nations? Or is it simply that only Russia is allowed to invade and its the fault of the victim once they do?
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
Ukraine needs a guaranteed security measure to prevent Russia from attacking again. It’s a stop gap to a more permanent solution. Either NATO membership or Nukes.
They had a security guarantee and it stood for 20 years. Then the USA finally made good on Clinton’s duplicitous plan to make Ukraine a NATO country and the security guarantee evaporated. Russia has been so consistent on this point for 30 years it’s amazing that the propaganda engine has made it impossible to talk about it in the US.
Why not both? Call the nukes a welcome to NATO bonus.
Perhaps Russia wouldn’t attack if it wasn’t provoked.
So what you’re saying is, there is nothing wrong with attacking Russia as they consistently provoke other nations? Or is it simply that only Russia is allowed to invade and its the fault of the victim once they do?
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters