A large number of EU resolutions on Ukraine are being blocked by Hungary, said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis.
Hungary is digging in and refusing to wave through billions in military aid for Ukraine, prompting growing dismay among other EU countries.
"I have to calm myself [when] I talk about this issue, because it’s getting really ridiculous now,” a senior EU diplomat said of the standoff with Hungary, speaking before Monday’s meeting of EU foreign ministers. “What’s happening is outrageous.”
Diplomats had hoped to have a new €6.6 billion package ready ahead of this week’s meetings of foreign and defense ministers in Brussels. The deal included €860 million for arms procurement, reported by POLITICO last week.
Joining NATO is not a defensive move, every single war its fought has been offensive in nature, and to quote Anthony Blinken “You’re either at the table or you’re on the menu”
Go hit the bottle again. It absolutely is a defensive move. Them and other countries near Russia were happy not being in NATO until Putin started attacking neighbors… He’s made it clear he wants to restore the USSR and its power…
Ukraine’s mistake was not moving faster/sooner to join NATO…
If Russia has legitimate reasons, why are all the reasons they give for their actions always a bunch of lies?
Why did they have to stage false flag terror attacks on their own soil to justify an attack? Why do they have to doctor footage, make up fake citizens, and twist history?
If they have the truth on their side, why not tell the truth?
I’m not saying the invasion was legitimate or justified, those concepts don’t even factor into state actors. I’m explaining the things that motivated it.
They’ve said over and over that it was over the failure to enforce the Minsk II agreement. But lies are convenient and animating so you get both. Same reason the US media pretended that Iraq had chemical weapons and was involved in 9/11. The populace probably would have been happy to go to war without those reasons, but it makes it easier and increases domestic support for the ruling party.
But they didn’t really motivate it though
The alternative is what? Putin just hates the Russian and Ukrainian people so much he decided to create a humanitarian disaster? That he wanted the wealth and productivity of land that currently looks like a WWI battlefield?
Lets be realistic. Putin is an agent of Russia’s national bourgeoisie, he wouldn’t have power if he didn’t offer anticommunism and stability for the oligarchs he depends on.
Yeah this war made Russia sooo stable
Putin is a madman who wants more power and more land and more people under his control. They genuinely thought the Ukrainians would give up within days.
All the intel from that time shows they didn’t expect lasting resistance. They expected to be able to hunt and execute everybody who had been part of the old government without any hickups, then just take over. And this was supposed to happen after a false flag attack on Russian soil, blamed on the Ukranian government, most likely together with a PR flood trying to convince the population that they would be safer under Russian rule due to their own government “being too dangerous / erratic” or whatever else.
The balance between Putin’s and other oligarchs’ power is not very stable given how many of them he has had killed. He’s relying on fear to keep them all from ganging up in him way once, just like how he relies on fear with everything else.
“every single war it’s faught”
So that would be Afghanistan.
The Balkans were just generally on fire in the 90s and NATO enforced a no fly zone and sent peacekeeper forces after the fact.
There’s a few more peacekeeping missions and no-fly zones (Lybia for example), then some training missions, some humanitarian missions (Pakistan for example), a few air campaigns against non-state entities (“terrorists” but realistically that’s often just a matter of perspective), and a bunch of anti-piracy actions.
So it’s “every single war” with heavy emphasis on single.
Peacekeeping? Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO’s “peace keeping”. But it’s hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America for arming the factions. Same with the balkins.
Dude, at least visit Wikipedia before you argue. Lybia was an example of NATO enforcing a no-fly zone, not peacekeeping. And Lybia’s HDI was back to pre-civil war levels three years ago (ie the 2021 data matches the 2013 data).
Are you going to pretend that Muammer Gaddafi was a benevolent and beloved dictator, and that there’s no way Lybians would want him to fuck off all of their own?
No it fucking isn’t. NATO lists all actions they’ve taken part of on their website. If the action is there, it was NATO, if it isn’t, it was not a NATO action.
I’m assuming that your meaning is that every single offensive campaign NATO has taken part in was one it started without provocation. That’s a very interesting argument, so please provide specific evidence to back the claim you are making that every single NATO offense was an aggressive one. And don’t just give me some form of “do your own research”, you’re making a claim so back it up.
Furthermore, reading between the lines, it seems you may possibly feel that these alleged aggressive moves by NATO justify Russian imperialism, in this specific case the invasion of Ukraine. If that’s the case, do you think Putin’s comments regarding the reestablishment of the Soviet Union have nothing to do with the war?
Strange, and which countries did NATO invade then?
Because the only case NATO was called was after 9/11, but since it was about invading an other country all of it was voluntary. So the majority didn’t even participate.