Putin was never spittin. F*** anyone who opposes the West

Link to full speech?

Putin speeches on why he’ll annex ukraine

Talking bout US imperialism aint the smartest thing to do while invading a country either

US ambigiously saying they may not support Ukraine in NATO

interesting do u have a link

newsweek.com/joe-biden-administration-jake-sullivan-throws-cold-water-ukraine-joining-nato-1748079

"Biden Administration Throws Cold Water on Ukraine Joining NATO"

U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan says Ukrainian efforts to join NATO should be taken up "at a different time",

-

yahoo.com/video/ukraines-application-join-nato-catches-075200718.html

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether she supports Ukraine's accession to NATO, avoided a direct answer, Politico said. Instead, she reaffirmed her support for “security guarantees” for Kyiv.
Jake Sullivan, the U.S. President's National Security Advisor, said that it was “not the right time” for Ukraine’s admission to the alliance. He said he believes the best way to help Ukraine is to provide practical assistance “on the ground.”

-

politico.com/news/2022/09/30/zelenzkyy-ukraine-nato-putin-annexations-00059782

Ukraine’s announcement that it was seeking an accelerated entry into NATO came as a surprise to the Biden administration, according to two U.S. officials familiar with internal discussions.

thank you king

He should've said angloids

Yea duh cause that automatically means war with Russia. Doesn't mean it's not possible at a later time. Can't be a member state while being in a conflict

yeah i know that's the obvious reason but that's really only formally the case. Russia already considers themselves at war with Europe and the US basically as per Putin's speech, and the US is already basically Ukraine like its a part of NATO in everything except supplying its own troops (admittedly a massive step, but still). If the US was worried that much about escalation they should have taken some further steps back earlier.

The invasion would've happened anyway if the US would've taken some steps back or not. Regime change in Ukraine was the goal for Russia at first

I don't disagree with that at all - obviously that's the case in terms of Ukraine itself. But preventing the conflict from spreading outside of a localized political conflict was very much possible. The Armenia-Azerbaijan war didn't explode into borderline WW3 despite the same alliances and same actors being involved for example.

Basically happened cause of multiple factors. Biggest conflict inside Europe since WW2. Way closer to Western Europe and bordering to multiple NATO member states compared to that more localized conflict, and thus more danger for those countries. Ukraine wanting to be part of the EU and NATO, which might be the most important reason. And Russia becoming more and more agressive, and it seems European countries think Russia should be stopped before it's too late, that they won't stop at Ukraine. Russia also helps to strengthen that narrative by their very nationalistic language and behaviour

The US can be blamed but I don't necessarily think they could've de-escalated much here, even to a more localized conflict. They also seemed to try before the conflict started. It's multiple circumstances

I don't fully agree with most people a***yzing it through the lens that Russia wanted Ukraine as a stepping stone to Europe. It just doesn't really make any sense logically unless you're thinking about it from the angle of "russia purposefully wanted to bait EU +US into a war" under which, yeah both parties head over heels ran into heeding that call. Of course this helps strengthen their internal nationalistic narrative, but it does just as much as anything else they've down (Ossetia in Georgia, Crimea prior) - it's not even like this is the first time Russia has invaded Ukraine in modern history. The calls of "we need to do this so russia doesn't become more aggressive" is largely a retrospective justification for why NATO allies engaged in escalatory behavior rather than what the citation was at the time. The initial justification - near universally - was that we weren't escalating at all, we just needed to show support/solidarity for Ukraine. It's only now that (both sides to be fair, not just the west) basically just admits "yeah it is actually about the opposition". I want to note this is an important distinction because it's not like even parties who have played both sides (i.e. Israel) have been rushing to Russia's aide - even China and India have been hesitant to show "support" beyond ambiguously skirting around direct condemnation. Even countries like Serbia (who are basically direct Russia allies) aren't recognizing annexation but that doesn't mean they're marching toward escalatory war like the NATO allied world seems more than keen to walk the balance beam of.

Maybe because it's not the first time Russia been agressive to and in bordering former Soviet states, including Ukraine, actually makes this time different. It hit too close home for some NATO/EU states. If NATO can't guarantee the security of those states there is no purpose for the whole alliance

Russian allies can easily not support Russia tho cause they're the agressor. Ukrainian allies have to support them otherwise they would've lost already. So that means escalation by default

Thank you Russia for this tremendous strategic opportunity !!

another northeastern recapture off the back of Izyum

madness

so putin gonna nuke if ukraine joins nato?

let ukraine hate from outside the club