11
all 8 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[removed by mod]
[deleted]
No, I'm saying the documents do not sustain the claims. The documents go into supporting Ukraine, e.g. to help them defeat Russian fleet and gain maritime supremacy. However, there's no indication on what I've seen there akin to the claims that they want to "drag out the war as long as possible" and "prepare their own people to live in poverty" (not exact quotes because I'm on phone and I'm afraid to lose this text). These are the authors one-sided and tendentious interpretations of continued support, which by the structure of the article and the way he presents it he makes seem as if they were part of the documents. But they aren't.
UK supports Ukraine. That's a known fact. It'd be insane to believe there'd be no briefings on strategy (whether these came into effect isn't clear either).
drag the war out as long as possible
You have very poor reading comprehension, or you are very dishonest.
They are stating their intent to prolong the war beyond any potential peace agreements. Do you even know what a "stay-behind operation" entails? First the West intervened in 2022 to stop Kiev from negotiating, they prolong the war with aid, make a lot of money, and they intend to use the territory to launch attacks on Russia no matter what happens to the army and the government.
Think Crocus Hall style attacks. That is what the real Operation Gladio entailed.
Drones flying into apartment buildings. Knowing this is what the west promises even after potential negotiations will make Russia settle for far, far fewer territorial concessions. Between the missiles and the provocations they may steamroll the entire country after they dispose of the main lines of conflict.
There are many other points to cover here but it is important for you to understand you cannot breeze your way through historical references and then pretend you know what Operation Gladio was. You're lazy.
[removed by mod]
There is more than one book about Gladio but at this point I am just going to assume you are a real boot boy who loves the western military and believes everything they say and dismisses all criticism as conspiracies. Don't beat around the bush you slimy motherfucker. You believe the CIA claim that the document is "communist forgery". This is the organization that took ib Hitler's men after the war. Why didn't you state your reasons for dismissing the document as a hoax? Worried you might look "Muricacentric" man?
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ The "Zelensky is a badass" narrative in 2024 is hilarious. So you expect me to believe negotiations did not fall through because of the West intervening when Foreign Affairs admitted they had a peace deal worked out prior to the UK doing so. Fat chance. You really perceive this as a Manichean struggle and not a geopolitical conflict motivated by finance. Dogbrained bullshit.
Yes the military aid is specifically to prolong the war are you serious? You actually think the western countries are just sending the aid to be nice. Ukraine now has one of the worst debt situations in the entire world, and who do you think that is owed to? The same firms that ensure your children will never own a house, buddy.
Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.
“Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”
Calls it peace plan, then I'm the next paragraph refers to it as "negotiated interim settlement" where Russia gets to hold all of Crimea and the Donbas... and the word peace doesn't even appear in the linked article. Nor any reference to an end of the conflict, and even the word "deal" only about the grain export.
The "Zelensky is a badass" narrative in 2024 is hilarious.
And yet, you're the only one calling it that. I was just stating that was offered and that Ukraine's government declined, asking if you're saying that this wasn't their own decision - which you dodged answering.
A peace plan without ceding Donbas? That's just a NATO warplan. Oh well I guess no more account for you. I didn't even report you but good riddance.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
11 points (66.7% liked)
World News
37220 readers
516 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS