Europe won’t be able to finance Ukraine’s defenses against Russia’s invasion on its own if the US withdraws support under Donald Trump’s next presidency, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Friday.
Orban said recent events vindicated the conclusions from his controversial July diplomatic mission to Kyiv, Moscow and Beijing and showed Ukraine was losing the war.
“The Americans are going to get out of this war,” Orban, who is hosting a European Union summit in Budapest on Friday, said on public radio. “Europe can’t finance this war on its own.”
There is an unfortunate reality that there is a tipping point. At some point, Europe will need to cede Ukraine and stock up for itself to defend the next Russian incursion.
stock up for itself to defend the next Russian incursion.
As long as NATO stops its incursions, I don’t see why European states would need to do that.
- George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
- Jeffrey Sachs, May 2023: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
- Jeffrey Sachs, Sep. 2023: NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
I was saying that with the assumption that the US winds down support for Ukraine and is not seen as a trusted partner for European security.
I mean, the US Democrat administration blew up its European partner’s gas pipeline, which is a casus belli, so it was already untrustworthy.
Henry Kissinger:
- America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.
- It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.
Yeah the best way to discourage a revanchist is to give him what he wants. Succeeding in Ukraine will definitely convince Putin not to attack the baltics, poland, or finland.
You don’t understand what Russia wants; you understand what Western propaganda tells you it wants.
- Reuters, 2014: Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- Leaked recording between Nuland and Pyatt: audio | transcript
- Counterpunch, 2014: US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
- George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- Orinoco Tribune, 2022: Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
- NYT, 2024: U.N. Court to Rule on Whether Ukraine Committed Genocide
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
INB4 NATO is a defensive alliance.
- Counterpunch, 2020: The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
Just because you can cherry pick a dozen articles from the last TEN YEARS about NATO and Ukraine doesn’t make you right.
I don’t even need an article to refute all of that - Russia attacked a neighbor unprovoked, NATO has attacked NOBODY ever.
ComPleTeLy UnProVokEd 🤡
Russia attacked a neighbor unprovoked
I just showed you any number of Western media sources on how it was provoked, but here’s another from Jeffrey Sachs: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
NATO has attacked NOBODY ever.
For just two examples, NATO bombed the city of Belgrade for 78 straight days, and it destroyed Libya.
If your ideas of provocation are the same as the article you provided, you’re going to have to do better.
There were in fact two main U.S. provocations. The first was the U.S. intention to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia in the Black Sea region by NATO countries (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia, in counterclockwise order).
- Surely even Russia understands why people would want to expand and join NATO when they’re attacking people who are not members
The second was the U.S. role in installing a Russophobic regime in Ukraine by the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.
- Surely even Russia understands why people would want to have and be a Russophobic regime when they’re attacking people who are not violent. The protests against Yanukovych were peaceful until his regime turned on the protesters.
But why am I wasting my time arguing with you when you’re obviously here for some reason to carry water for Russia?
The protests against Yanukovych were peaceful until his regime turned on the protesters.
That is not what happened. It is now known that that was in fact a false flag attack by CIA-backed Banderite fascists. It is also now known that the “peaceful protest” was not entirely grassroots, but rather astroturfed.
But why am I wasting my time arguing with you when you’re obviously here for some reason to carry water for Russia?
But why am I wasting my arguing with you when you’re obviously here for some reason to carry water for imperialists? The US is aiding and abetting a genocide in Palestine as we speak, yet somehow you still think we’re the good guys (though, to be fair, I wouldn’t call Russia a perfect angel, either).
Jeffrey Sachs
Lol. Neoliberal wrecking crew turned autocrat’s errand boy.
Naomi Klein wasn’t wrong about neoliberal/neocolonial shock therapy, but she was wrong to paint Sachs as the great villain of that story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYZpF2ngnc
History has misjudged Jeffery Sachs according to… Jeffery Sachs!
Let’s be real, he’s the main guy pushing the “NATO expansion” theory of Russian aggression everywhere, and it exists mainly to cover for his own crimes.
What’s more likely: that Russian revanchism came from anger over some arcane treaty negotiations, or that it came from the absolute collapse in material condition, civil society, population, daily lived experience and life expectancy that Russians experienced as Sachs and his evil clients dismantled the once-great civilization for their own enrichment? What do you think Marx’s assessment of those two theories would be?
Sachs is a bag man. He helped the oligarchs destroy Russia and then he made himself useful to the new ruler when they were gone. He also spends a lot of time in Beijing and has a lot of good things to say about Xi as well. The guy’s a serpent.
What’s more likely: that Russian revanchism came from
Well there’s your problem: you believe the imperial core’s narrative that this is about “Russian revanchism” and not about decades of NATO expansion or Western Ukrainian fascists terrorizing eastern Ukrainians for almost a decade.
Believe what you like, but you don’t seem to be winning any hearts and minds here, and hardly anyone reads this far down conversation threads, anyway.
NATO has attacked NOBODY ever.
This isn’t true, unless Arabs aren’t people. Being a liberal we probably aren’t people to you so whatever crimes NATO committed doesn’t count.
Edit: I always forget Yugoslavia, a European country that NATO attacked. The US even bombed the Chinese embassy there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
Please tell me this is sarcasm. The fact that there have been so much consistent reporting over such a long period of time about NATO and Ukraine means it absolutely needs to be considered.
I don’t even need an article to refute all of that - Russia attacked a neighbor unprovoked, NATO has attacked NOBODY ever.
Again, please tell me this is satire. NATO has attacked multiple countries over the years. But also, since the advent of nuclear weapons, firing the first shot stopped being the standard. Because the first shot can now be a total annihilation shot, no country is capable of having a strategy that judges threats only by who fired the first shot. It must be judged by who is establishing the positioning to undermine security. Russia is not deploying nuclear capabilities around the world. The USA is deploying nuclear capabilities around the world, and in Europe it is doing so through NATO. This may be a shock to you, but deploying nuclear capabilities to undermine the security of another nation is NOT an act of peace.
If NATO is really as effective as it’s claimed to be, then the baltics, Poland, and Finland have nothing to worry about.
The enemy is both strong and weak. Russia is a paper tiger that will roll over all of Europe.
That’s what I don’t get. Russia is a laughing stock with its outdated equipment and inability to conquer Ukraine, yet it is also a massive threat to Europe leading Sweden and Finland scrambling to join NATO.
And if we are to believe that NATO is an effective alliance, then surely Russia will go no further than Ukraine. Yet we can’t let Putin win because he will try to go further than Ukraine.
Make it make sense. Some people are talking out both sides of their mouths.
You don’t understand anything about military reality, let alone actual motivations.
The CIA itself reports and has been reporting for years that Putin has no expansionist ambitions politically and no expansionist capabilities militarily.
There’s a reason why the Russian military has not tried to take Kiev and it’s because defending supply lines across the wide open plains of Ukraine is incredibly difficult and costly.
Russia is not capable of taking all of Eastern Europe and holidng and it has no plans or intentions to do so.
Amazing how there are still people here who don’t understand that NATO lost.
NATO are only tough against small countries with marginal militaries.
It’s literally an alliance of bullies.
removed by mod
If the US allows Israel to annex the North of Gaza like it allowed it to annex the Golan Heights, Russia can just point to that as precedent and evidence of US double standards.
The truth is that Russia already has a precedent in Yugoslavia. In fact, Russia intentionally modelled Ukraine on what NATO did in Yugoslavia where they recognized the independence of breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for help.
I disagree, Europe needs to never cede Ukraine at any cost—anything else is rewarding the warmonger
Yeah, why would Europe do that? After all its Ukrainians who will continue dying after being kidnapped off the streets and forbidden to leave the country.
Enjoy your life, and don’t think of hundreds of thousands dead people (not like you ever did that of course)…There is always a cutoff cost. For example, it cannot support Ukraine to the point that it’s own territorial security is compromised.
Ukraine is currently fighting this war for Europe too. Spending money and lifes directly in a confrontation is massively more expensive than sending weapons.
That is a crazy take. Europe could spend some money and help Ukraine win this without losing any of their own soldiers’ lives.
yeah, it’s only Ukrainians hopping into the meat grinder, after all
🤡
