Why should the British suffer for America’s “geostrategic objectives” (world domination plan)?
Of course, the narrative is that this is all about morality. But come on. Who believes that gibberish? Things are tough all over. The idea that the UK population has an obligation to suffer because something immoral is happening somewhere they can’t even find on a map is stupid. It’s very stupid. It doesn’t make any sense. People do not have moral obligations to strangers in foreign countries.
You have to be stupid enough to believe in the idea of a moral duty to random strangers in order to believe that the Ukraine war is moral in the first place. In reality, the US agenda is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and the displacement of tens of millions of people, over something that affects none of their lives.
No one in Kiev’s life would have been changed if they had simply surrendered the Donbass and agreed not to join NATO. Instead, because of the US, UK, Germany, and other foreigners manipulating them, the Ukraine is totally destroyed.
This is the problem of democracy. A king could not get away with something this nonsensical. But some goofball gorilla can do whatever he wants.
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly has acknowledged that backing Ukraine is “tough and painful.” He cautioned NATO allies against wavering, however, as turning their back on Kiev would cause greater problems down the line.
In an interview with The House media outlet on Saturday, Cleverly was asked to comment on “growing anti-Ukrainian sentiment” in some Western nations. He admitted that helping Kiev was “tough and this is painful,” with the conflict generally “putting pressure on countries all over the world.”
(Part of the problem with forced diversity is that these diversity hires say things they’re not supposed to say.)
However, the foreign secretary insisted that “if we don’t stick with our support to Ukraine, if we send the signal that aggressors can prosper, then all the problems that we are currently facing … will just get worse.”
He urged Western allies to address fatigue, which has become a “big thing.”
Commenting on former US President Donald Trump’s repeated promises to end hostilities between Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours, Cleverly said the Republican “did some very surprising and positive things with regard to international relations” during his first term in the White House. The British minister specifically mentioned the Abraham Accords, which paved the way for the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab nations.
Monkey man say long nose tribe very good tribe.
Cleverly added that, while he would be delighted if Trump managed to secure a just peace swiftly, this is not something London is banking on.
In a TV interview on Friday, Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Aleksey Danilov lamented that the country’s Western backers had not made it clear whether they will stand by Kiev until it wins the conflict or only for some limited amount of time. “No one can clearly answer us what our victory means,” he claimed.
Why would he say that?
Isn’t that the argument of the people against the war?
Zelensky says that “victory” means “taking” Crimea.
I thought we all understood that as the definition of victory, and there was no situation in which anything else would be acceptable, which means that when every able-bodied Ukrainian is dead, we’re going to have to send in some other country’s population to fight this war – possibly for thousands or millions of years.
If that’s no longer the assumption, then maybe it’s time for some kind of consideration of peace, huh?
Surely, “endless war” is not an agenda that can be supported endlessly. This is costing the Western public heavily. The actual support is from women and homosexuals, but I think that even they are starting to wonder about the amount of money this is costing, and noticing that this “victory” they are planning is not possible.
We are 4 months into the “counteroffensive” and the Ukraine has not even taken an inch of territory, on the whole.
This is the official map:
That green territory that was “reconquered” was never conquered in the first place, it was invaded and then evacuated weeks after the initial invasion, when it became clear that there were not going to be any negotiations.
Since the invasion, Russia has not surrendered any territory. They have evacuated parts that they only briefly held, but the core line has remained the same. For nearly a year now, Russia has dug in and held a line, allowing the Ukrainians to continue to send troops to die, while Russian losses are minimized.
Retards on TV keep claiming that this territory matters. It doesn’t matter. This is a war of attrition. The only reason territory matters is if it is strategic – i.e., if it helps you kill people. Otherwise, the Russian plan is obviously to hold the line and let the Ukraine military exhaust itself through mass death.
Here’s the basic fact: even if the Ukrainians were super competent (they are not), Russia is a much bigger country, and is therefore going to win a war of attrition.