• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    On what fucking planet is a negotiation between the country invading a neighbor and the now-dubious ally of the country being invaded - but NOT the country that’s actually being invaded - in any way shape or form meaningful or helpful? Explain to me why this shouldn’t be viewed as a possible modern-day Molotov Ribbentrop pact?

    • bubblybubbles@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you (finally) accept the fact that it’s always been an empire proxy war, then it makes perfect sense

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I am aware that it’s a proxy war, to a large extent. But Russia is the one who invaded, after signing a treaty that guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for surrendering their nuclear weapons.

        Maybe pull your head out of your ass and don’t assume that everyone who objects to the propaganda you often post is as dogmatically naive about the nuances of geopolitics as you are.

        • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          A) Memorandum not treaty. Not legally binding.

          B) Ukraine never had nuclear weapons. They were Soviet nukes on Ukrainian soil. Moscow had sole control over them.

          C) It also stipulated that Ukraine must remain neutral. Ukraine abandoned its neutrality with the 2014 coup. The agreement became null and void.