Hohols Outraged at NATO Suggestion of Ceding Territory, Say No Surrender, Ever

Previously: NATO Official Says They’re Already Discussing Ceding Land to Russia

So, the Ukraine has half the population they had when the invasion happened.

They’ve done nothing but lose this whole time. Like, it’s been cartoonish.

They are completely dependent on NATO/US for their existence – and not only militarily, mind you; the Americans are literally paying the salaries of everyone in their government.

Yet somehow, they feel the right to act indignant. It’s amazing, really.


Ukrainian presidential adviser Mikhail Podoliak has rejected the idea of abandoning his country’s territorial claims in exchange for NATO membership. The only solution, he declared, is the West “speeding up the supply of weapons.”

Trading territory for a NATO umbrella? It is ridiculous,” Podoliak wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday. “If [ Russian President Vladimir] Putin does not suffer a crushing defeat, the political regime in Russia does not change, and war criminals are not punished, the war will definitely return with Russia’s appetite for more.”

Yeah, well.

It doesn’t matter anyway, because Putin isn’t going to take a deal that involves NATO membership for whatever remains of the Ukraine.

Actually, I think he might do it if he has control of Kharkov and Odessa.

Earlier on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen, said that the US-led bloc could potentially offer Ukraine a deal whereby it “gives up territory, and gets NATO membership in return.” Such an idea, he claimed, was being talked about within NATO as a “possible solution” to the conflict.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his officials insist they will not enter into peace talks with Putin, nor will they stop fighting to retake the regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, or Zaporozhye, which were incorporated into the Russian Federation following referendums last September. Zelensky has also vowed to capture Crimea, which rejoined the Russian Federation in 2014.

Despite admitting that Ukraine is unlikely to take Crimea, and that its ongoing counteroffensive against Russian forces is failing, Western leaders have – publicly, at least – balked at the idea of seeking a ceasefire that would freeze the current frontlines in place. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last year that such an arrangement would lead to a “phony peace,” and the White House’s official line – that it will arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes” remains Washington’s policy.

Attempts to preserve the world order and establish a bad peace’ … will not bring peace to the world,” Podoliak continued. “Why propose the scenario of a freeze, so desired by Russia, instead of speeding up the supply of weapons?” he added, concluding “murderers should not be encouraged by appalling indulgences.”

Podoliak’s response is typical of his social media posts, which often combine maximalist declarations of total war with demands for more Western weapons. 

Yes, this is all they do – they make these outrageous declarations, then whine and beg.

Imagine if a person you knew in real life acted like the officials of the Ukraine government.

The only reason anyone supports this war is because it’s been marketed as a war for gay sex, a war against whites and Christians. So you have this huge army of war fanatics online, who bully and silence anyone who questions whether or not this makes sense.

Of course, it’s backed up by this constant claim that Russia is just beginning some kind of world conquest agenda, and that a Ukrainian secession of hostilities would “embolden” them to invade like, Poland, or whatever.

Russia might end up invading Poland. But it’s not going to be because the Ukrainians acted reasonably. It would, obviously, be for the opposite reason.

If NATO troops go into the Ukraine – which is going to be the only option soon, if Zelensky keeps sending his own soldiers to die pointlessly – then all bets are off and all of these nightmare scenarios the Ukrainians are screaming about could come true.

But expanding the war is not in Russia’s interests, and it is something they would only do if their backs were against the wall.

It’s not really very hard to understand the basic idea here:

  • Both Russia and China view doing business with the world as much more profitable than being at war with it
  • The United States wants to be at war with the world
  • The United States therefore accuses Russia and China of wanting war with the world as a pretext to push for global war

There are various reasons for this. Jews are probably the biggest reason. But the second biggest reason is that the US no longer feels it is capable of competing economically, so feels that war is the only form of competition that is tolerable.

The campaign of Vivek is so interesting because he is basically outlining a plan for how the US could switch out of war mode into economic cooperation mode. That’s why he says that China’s nationalistic desire to reunify with Taiwan is irrelevant to US interests, while virtually every other politician spews this goofy gobbledygook about “protecting democracy.”