- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary
In a Fox News interview, Donald Trump argued that Ukraine should not have resisted Russia’s 2022 invasion, claiming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should have made a deal with Vladimir Putin.
Trump criticized Zelenskyy for choosing to fight, compared the military strength of Russia and Ukraine, and said he could have ended the war quickly through negotiations.
Trump’s stance contrasts with Joe Biden’s strong support for Ukraine, including aid and sanctions on Russia.
Ukraine HAD a deal with Russia ensuring its peace and its borders. It was called the Budapest Memorandum. Russia was the one violating the deal Russia had agreed to.
I think you’re confused that was the treaty that said NATO couldn’t come within forty thousand miles of its borders and what about Biden’s Ukrainian money laundering bio-facilities?
Youbare forgetting also the warcrimes of Umranians where they have time travel labs yhey use to travel back in time to kill baby jesus every day and internet hacking centers used to force musk do awkward gestures. Truly the axis of evil.
I didn’t forget anything I just was listing stuff in order of importance.
You also forget Ukranian corrupt camera lens factories sabotaging all cameras worldwide in order to make the earth seem not flat.
What about Volodymyr Zelenskyy assassinating JFK?
That is propaganda and if you think about it, obviously impossible.
He did cause every issue in human history by convincing the first ape to stand up tho.
In case anyone is thinking of taking this troll seriously, there is no treaty that prevents NATO from expanding east. There was something like it between NATO and the USSR but Russia officially is not the successor to USSR so they have no claim to that guarantee. It’s all Russian propaganda.
Officially, they are the USSR successor state; they received the USSR’s seat on the UN security council.
Okay. This is a bit more nuanced and what I gave was my opinion, as in they’re not the successor. They are the successor in some cases, but whether they’re actually the successor or not depends on which option is beneficial to Russia. When it comes to NATO Russia likes to act like it’s the successor, but when it comes to reparations for the atrocities the USSR committed that’s when Russia says they’re not actually the successor to the USSR and can’t be responsible for the atrocities committed by the USSR. I’m my eyes you can’t have it both ways and as such I’m just taking cues from the Russian playbook. Whatever guarantees were given they were given to the USSR and not Russia, especially when those guarantees were never on paper.
Like, if you seriously believe that, you should check your reasoning skills.
This isn’t the ship of theseus. Not everything was exchanged. USSR changed one small thing which is its name and became Russia, that does not invalidate all prior agreements.
USSR dissolved in 1991 when its last member state, Khazakstan, left. Russia, which had left the union prior, found itself with a lot of nuclear warheads. Other ex-member states agreed to hand the nukes they had to Russia. Having nuclear weapons and having the means to maintain them and launch them, Russia naturally joined the Security Council in 1991.
So why isn’t Russia taking responsibilities for the atrocities and illegal occupations done by the USSR? It’s as if it’s not just a name change.
Also what agreement do you think gives Russia that guarantee? There’s no paper that says NATO won’t expand east.
Which empires actually gave reparations to former countries though? Sadly Russia doesn’t seem to do worse than the rest of the world in this area
Russia’s not taking responsibility for the atrocities and illegal occupations done by Russia.
Jesus fuck, ppl. This is sarcasm.
Is it? It’s hard to tell anymore.