Nothing says desperation like going to a country even more sanctioned to buy some weapons.

If you don’t mind selfhosting, miniflux is pretty nice.

Really lightweight, downloads the full text if possible (instead of just the first paragraph), etc.

Obviously it was the Ukrainian Nazis that caused the explosion. /s

Because one can be pinned down to government involvement, while the other can’t.

It’s the classic CCP defense: “We’re not an authoritarian country, you’re just racist!”.

EDIT: not saying that it was or wasn’t a lab leak, but as soon as the government shoots down the possibility with “you’re racist”, I immediately get suspicious. The same way that I get suspicious when Israel shoots down criticism with “you’re just anti-Semitic”. It’s basically gaslighting with identity politics.

Americans keep culturally appropriating Italy, first pizza and now fascism. smh

Ah yes, right wing nationalism is a problem exclusively in Ukraine. Russia invading a neighbour has nothing to do with Russification.

www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/return-russian-ethnonationalism

You’re also an American tankie who seems to have a knewjerk reaction of blaming everything on a group of Ukrainian white nationalists.

Italians are perfectly capable of having their own home-grown right wing clowns. They invented fascism after all.

I’m black fyi so no, I’m not going anywhere, you however will be leaving with your nazi trash

What does that have to do with anything?

You accused the website of being Nazi, when it has a left-leaning bias. How does being black make any difference regarding an uninformed opinion like that?

What does that have to do with the website (Euromaiden Press)?

If anything, they have a slight left-leaning bias, so how are they Nazi website? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/euromaidan-press/

Go home tankie.

You’re replying to a tankie.

Just the usual knewjerk reaction to defend China.

Don’t change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.

I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don’t like?

It’s about how a nato official blurted something out

He wanted them to consider it, otherwise he wouldn’t have said it. This is not some guy in the pub having a chat with his friends and he “blurted it out” over some beers. These are bureaucrats with highly controlled chains of command.

emediatly had to apologize

He did that after the Ukrainian backlash.

I’m not going to debate who’s wining, since you’re going to pull out some RT stats. What I’m arguing is the point tankies keep pushing that NATO is somehow pushing Ukrainians into a war against their will, and that NATO is not open to a negotiation to end the war.

You had literally a NATO official suggesting Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Ukrainians getting outraged, and him having to backpedal.

Read the article mate.

NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don’t dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?

with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

With a puppet government, you mean.

Just like the “free” elections that they lead in an occupied territory.

But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting.

LOL When did that happen tankie? Russia is the one that propped up the separatist movement in the Donbas in the first place.

How does that contradict what I’ve said? They want NATO to send weapons, and they fear Russia (for obvious reasons). And NATO needs to reassure them that they will support them in defending themselves against a potential Russian invasion.

Are you trying to change the subject? Or did you genuinely did not understand what I said?

Public opinion in Eastern European NATO countries is very much pro-Ukraine. They want NATO to send more weapons.

In fact, they have gone above and beyond to send them more weapons (percent-wise), than other countries.

But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

Assurance to the other Eastern European countries that are members (read my previous response). The other Eastern European countries want to supply weapons to Ukraine (they have gone above and beyond to send extra to Ukraine).

Yes, NATO doesn’t want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.

Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don’t say “stop supplying weapons”, NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

NATO wants to give assurances to their Eastern European members that they won’t bail on them when Russia starts eyeing their territory.

If they wanted to keep the war going, they wouldn’t have made the offer in the first place.