Summary
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Russia rejects a weak ceasefire in Ukraine, instead seeking a legally binding peace deal ensuring the security of Russia and its neighbors.
Lavrov accused the West of using truces to re-arm Ukraine and called for agreements preventing future violations.
President Putin expressed readiness for talks with Trump but ruled out territorial concessions or Ukraine’s NATO membership, a key Russian concern.
Ukraine remains committed to pursuing NATO membership despite Russia’s objections.
I’ve carefully considered Russia’s concerns and security, and after 3 years I’ve ultimately decided that I don’t give a fuck about Genocidal Fascist Warmonger’s Fee-fees.
Ukraine’s sovereingty doesn’t end where Russian hurt feelings begin.
Just a whore arguing over the price. The most natural thing in the world for a Russian politician.
You find a way to force Russia to hand all their nuclear weapons to NATO and you got yourself a deal. Ukraine will even promise not to invade Russia once that is done.
Bro, literally nobody is threatening Russia besides you clowns.
Code for: no NATO for Ukraine, we get some time to build up and have another crack in a few years
Ok, so a return to 1994 and the Budapest memorandum[0]. Sounds good to me!
Remember, Russia is the only offensive party in all of this.
I’m sure we can give the same security guarantees Ukraine got, in exchange for Russia similarly giving up its nuclear weapons.
Your security was not an issue until you invaded Ukraine. You didn’t want NATO on your border (even though it already was there in Kaliningrad)? Now you have it.
No one was talking about Finland joining NATO until you invaded Ukraine. Ukraine itself wasn’t pursuing NATO membership until you invaded.
“Now that I’m done beating the shit out of you, what guarantee do I have that you won’t fight back, because that would just be mean”
Kaliningrad
Also Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Canada (if you don’t count the Arctic).
The idea that Ukraine joining NATO made any kind of difference to Russia’s security is absolutely ludicrous.
Nevermind the fact that annexing Ukraine would also have moved their border to NATO.
Yeah, exactly.
It genuinely worries me that people struggle to see through bullshit this obvious.
Literally nobody who isn’t just a Russian troll is confused by this.
No, sadly I’ve seen a lot of well meaning leftists get caught up in this bullshit. Not denying that Russian trolls have been intentionally spreading their talking points, but I’ve also seen them repeated by far too many people who should know better.
People you know in real life?
IRL and online. It happens way too often.
A big part of it is that a lot of modern leftists were kind of forged in the post 9/11 culture and the reaction against Bush’s forever wars, and they in turn inherited much of their political conscience from elder leftists who were forged in the Nixon years and the reaction against the Vietnam war.
So its become a kind of fait a complit on the left that being anti-war and anti American Imperialism is always good and necessary. And those are good positions to hold, but the problem is that people don’t come to them through interrogative thought. They’re just sort of handed to you as part of your welcome package. So when presented with a scenario where supporting the continuation of a military conflict - even when that support aligns you with the interests of US global influence - is actually a moral good, a lot of these people really struggle to break free of their own thought terminating cliches.
The Ukraine conflict simply does not fit into the same boxes that they’re used to sorting ideas into, and because, by and large, most leftists detest war on a purely moral level (understandable, no one should be overjoyed at the notion of vast destruction of human life, though a depressingly large number of people are) they simply haven’t spent enough time interrogating these ideas to have built a framework to handle complex cases like this.
Russia very carefully frames their propaganda to exploit these moral conflicts. NATO is a military alliance, ergo “NATO bad”. America is an imperialist power, ergo anything that serves American interests is bad. Military conflicts lead to unacceptable loss of life, ergo anything which prolongs a conflict is bad. These are easy answers to complicated problems, so people naturally latch onto them.
That was just the excuse. Ukraine is a mineral-rich breadbasket. They had stuff Russia wants. Simple as that. Just like the US invading Iraq had nothing to do with “spreading democracy”.
Russia’s security wasn’t at issue but the regime’s security was. Russia is like the regimes from 1984: they need constant external threats to wage war against in order to distract the opposition at home.
Lavrov accused the West of using truces to re-arm Ukraine and called for agreements preventing future violations.
Russia wants time to rearm, but doesn’t want the people they’re attacking doing the same thing.
Typical fascist rhetoric: accuse others of what you want to do
accuse others of what you want to do
Hey, that’s Republican territory.
Typical fascist rhetoric
Republican territory
I do believe @sexy_peach was not stuttering or being confused
Exactly, and we’re need to be extra careful when talking about any deal: https://youtu.be/MhpoNL1gZbw
STFU moscow
@MicroWave Hey Russia, you could try not invading people if you’re worried about them fighting back?
Delusional nonsense from Moscow as usual.
Get fucked
I wonder what noises this asshole would make if a large pointy 2x4 traversed him in reverse from arse to piehole. Would it be similar to bear love making? I hope someone out there, who knows where a bear might be, could unite them to have a good listen.
Is that too much? 2X4 instead?
It’s hard to tell by the article if Lavrov believes the bullshit he’s spewing, or if he’s just the poor guy who has to spin Putins bullshit or else fall off a balcony
By this moment, he had many opportunities to disappear, I believe.
fuck you ruZZia.
