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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
ComPleTeLy UnProVokEd 🤡
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.
