Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death
Zelensky dismisses compromise with Putin, pointing to Prigozhin’s death
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
You're viewing a single thread.
Lol right? I mean why would literally anyone trust Putin at this point?
I'm kind of confused why Prigozhin did what he did, even. He knew Putin was going to try to kill him afterwards, I had assumed he had his own play but I guess not.
His entire plan made very little sense. And he’s dead now so clearly whatever he thought he was doing definitely did not work out.
Yeah. I eagerly await whatever book will come out about it in a couple decades.
IIRC, I believe Putin found the family members of the people in his chain of command and threatened with their safety.
It's pretty weird if Prigozhin didn't have those people all locked down already, too. He knew the gravity of starting an armed rebellion and he knew as well as anyone how Putin operates.
As far as I recall, I read on a random article that his family was secured, but not the family of his close chain of command or something.
So he just messed up, then. Oops, now you're dead.
Hasn't he had pretty good relations with, like, literally all of BRICS?
So good he didn't even show up there at the last conference in person because of pretty legitimate concerns they'd arrest him? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-remotely-attends-brics-summit-in-south-africa-while-facing-war-crimes-warrant
Oh no! Not international law!
So are you arguing his relationship with BRICS is actually good despite them probably arresting them if he shows up? What would make a bad relationship in your eyes?
Hasn't Lula already declared Putin is free to enter Brazil regardless of international law and potential sanctions?
We’ll see if he’s still dictator in a year to take advantage of that!
Lula walked this back literally just today btw.
That's why he went to South Africa in that visit!
Permanently Deleted
Why should anyone trust a person at an instance called lib.lgbt, with a pro-NATO stance?
Quite dishonest to equate “not wanting Ukraine invaded by Russia” with being pro NATO.
Quite dishonest to equate “not wanting Ukraine invaded by Russia” with being pro NATO.
Quite dishonest to equate "criticizing Zelensky and this US proxy war" with being tankie or russian terrorist.
That's crazy, the level of accusatory reversal.
You might have mixed up something. Neither I or anybody on this direct thread said anything about terrorism or tankies. We didn't even mention zelensky.
Either you're the crazy one or you have been called those this enough time as to lose track.
BTW, it couldn't be a pretty war if, you know, Russia didn't start a war... small detail I know
Neither I or anybody on this direct thread said anything about terrorism
just ctrl+f "terrorist"
You are the first one on this come thread. Other threads sure talk about that. But not this one. So yeah... double down in your mistakes, the Putin's way.
take it. You just demonstrated your dishonesty here. There's like at least, 10 occurences of this word in this thread.
Let's see. We have OP, then Veraticus, AnonymouseJoker, me and then you complaining.
Who said those things in that thread? You mean somebody else I'm a different thread of the same post said so? So what? What does that have to do with me then? Why I'm dishonest because somebody else I haven't even interacted with said something your dislike? Can I throw at you that some people are happy of the dead civilians? Those who want Russia to continue and take over all Europe? Can you grasp how silly that would be, and why it's stupid if you do it?
As a clarification, since searching the page will give you the wrong idea, direct thread is referring to this direct chain of comments, not the whole post.
Remind me again what did RAND Corp outline about US agenda against Russia in 2019 documents, or US ex-VP Dick Cheney tell us what NATO's vision about Russia is (spoiler: balkanisation), or how Biden, after pumping $40B into Ukraine, is asking for $60B more from GOP to use Ukraine as a condom to try fuck with Russia till the "last Ukrainian", causing deaths of both Ukrainians and Russians?
Please go ahead and tell yourself what it says and why that makes it ok to kill Ukrainian civilians.
Who the fuck is supporting killing Ukrainian civilians? No pro-Russia person is supporting it, no socialist supports it. Russian military is not going around hunting civilians, unlike what Ukraine was doing to Donbass for years, and the former have only attacked the infrastructure, military and industries. The casualty ratio for everything else versus civilians has been over 10 to 1, which does prove civilians are not being targeted by Russia in any capacity.
You want to know who support killing of Ukrainian civilians? Zelensky and Joe Biden. They are the ones who want this shit to go down to the "last Ukrainian". Zelensky has been even selling away Ukraine land to private western companies, I think Blackrock, or some other company.
No. Just no. Russia is invading. You can't, in good faith, blame the invaded for the casualties. The same way you can't tell a woman that she got beaten because she refused to have sex.
I can understand it's not a black and white issue, but this is the laziest propaganda imaginable. You want to stop the casualties right now? Russia retreats to their territory at this very moment. It's that simple. Keep trying to invade the country won't reduce the casualties. Now you will take your whataboutism card to say it's your time to do some killing. Or say that US allying with Ukraine and Russia taking my force is basically the same.
You think the invasion is rightful so the deaths are in there fault of the defenders? Happy that Russia reports low civilian death ratio? Fantastic, you have now used the same argument that all other atrocities used. I'll also oppose the ones you oppose BTW not only the ones that fit my agenda.
Euromaidan coup with CIA involvement happened in 2013, and we know everything about the leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. Ukraine to be called sovereign, without CIA backing, will have to be rolled back upto 2003 (Orange protests sponsored by CIA), and all the "western expansion" rolled back upto the 90s when West broke the Warsaw Pact. Ukraine will have to sign the Minsk agreements. Only then will Russia consider stopping the response. Russia has done aggression in response, and is in no form or shape an initiation, if you have any respect for and know history.
John Mearsheimer has an hour long lecture from 2015 telling the conflict will grow if Ukraine and West do not stop, and his boring lecture has 20-30M views.
Who cares? Russia sucks. Remember when they were the bad guy in every movie and every American was anti-Russia? What the fuck happened to the GOP that they’re all sucking Russian dick now?
Putin is a wannabe dictator fucking with Europe, America, and Canada with troll farms while invading non-aggressive neighbours and should be crushed.
Yes, let’s all go back to the McCarthyist days where everyone was secretly a ebil commie, why don’t you go the frontlines and see how ‘enthusiastic’ the Ukrainian conscripts are about the war, if you hate Russia so much
The United States made Russia into what it is today. Yeltsin's campaign was heavily funded be the US under Clinton, and Putin was hand picked by Yeltsin as his successor.
Remind me again what did RAND Corp outline about US agenda against Russia in 2019 documents, or US ex-VP Dick Cheney tell us what NATO’s vision about Russia is (spoiler: balkanisation),
Dunno, but not really necessary to know about it when the statement being challenged is "not wanting Ukraine invaded by Russia".
how Biden, after pumping $40B into Ukraine, is asking for $60B more from GOP to use Ukraine as a condom to try fuck with Russia till the “last Ukrainian”, causing deaths of both Ukrainians and Russians
Don't really care about US but isn't your yearly military spending like 1Trillion? I looked it up and in 2016 the budget was $639.86B, while in 2023 seems to be $797.B, Accounting for inflation from 2016 to 2023 (Core inflation averaged 3.09% per year between 2016 and 2023 (vs all-CPI inflation of 3.52%), for an inflation total of 23.74%.) $639.86B then is $791,76B now, so accouting for inflation This year's military budget is not higher than the one in 2016. I picked that year because as an outsider I don't think the US was doing anything special by then, no covid no Ukraining war, nothing. So basically the US is not spending more than usual for the military, and although I think that's too much in general, blaming the war maybe isn't the best approach.
It took me 5 mins to find these numbers and do the math.
USA can print as much dollar as they like. Inflation does not matter as much as intent does. The problem is not money.
All of that I mentioned is necessary to know why Russia had to step in, and not what you claim about inflation. If you think justifying $150B raise in annual military budget over 6 years makes any sense, I do not think we have much to talk about.
What does .ml stand for again?
Mali. The domain is free.
I thought it was Machine Learning lmao.