Zelenskyy straight-up said Ukraine is going to lose if Congress doesn't send more aid

No you were telling the story how you think NATO was formed. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.

"The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defense treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom and was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a multinational defense organization, the Western Union Defence Organisation, in September 1948.[4] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, the communist 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état had overthrown a democratic government, and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially with the American anxiety over Italy and the Italian Communist Party.[5]"

We have direct quotes from the primary sources, which just so happens to actually align with the actual events recorded in history. You are just participating in revisionist history.

Not sure what you mean by "annexing". The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union.

Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.

The USSR running a coup is a major stretch as the communists inside the CSSR did it. It's not like those were a minority. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.

The general expectation was that the Communists would be soundly defeated in the May 1948 elections.[10][11] That September, at the first Cominform meeting, Andrei Zhdanov observed that Soviet victory had helped achieve "the complete victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie in every East European land except Czechoslovakia, where the power contest still remains undecided."[11] This clearly implied the KSČ should be accelerating its own efforts to take complete power. That notion would be reinforced during the Prague Spring, when party archives were opened and showed that Stalin gave up the whole idea of a parliamentary path for Czechoslovakia when the Communist parties of France and Italy failed to achieve power in 1947 and 1948.[11]

yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?

Because reality matters. Yes, NATO is run by a bunch of shit bags, but that doesn't change the events of history no matter how much you want it to. The Soviet Union was not perfect, and a lot of their down fall has to do with how they expanded communism in eastern Europe.

There is a reason why Mao lost faith with the Soviets, and there is a reason why he developed his ideology about revolution being tailored to the proletariat of the individual culture.

Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1934 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all

But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?

Yeah you shitlib you do. by saying shit like this: "You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.", because it doesn't matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn't have been formed in the first place and disbanded with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact.

Lol, we've been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place..... You are just being factitious in avoidance of the actual argument. Either have an actual rebuttal, or just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war?

Can you not read what you just quoted? "Unless you are on the supply side like America". I was talking about Europe, go work on your reading comprehension.

Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian "play their little game of paritions"

Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing......

What evidence do you have to support this claim you keep making? Oh yeah....none. You aren't even providing context....

understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source...

Says the person who keeps mixing around dates.

because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it.

Lol, I totally have a source, she goes to a different school, you wouldn't know her.

I'm fucking Korean you dolt. I don't care if it's non western, so long as it's accurate and not directly from a blatantly biased source. My family had to immigrate from an actual fascist dictatorship for participating in socialist student uprisings, so I think I'll be okay with leftist sources.

As for calling me a shitlib.

What revolutionary actions have you taken? What organizing, mutual aid, or mutual protection have you participated in? Being a leftist isn't about defending your perspective on any particular theory so hard that you alienate other leftist, or even potential leftist. It's the opposite, it is about proving your ideology is better by showing it, taking care of people, doing things that our capitalist governments won't.

Lying about history doesn't do any of that. The internal contradictions in capitalism is self evident. The only thing leftist need to do is provide contrast by showing what mutual cooperation can achieve when enacted upon.