Current Events > Zelensky slams NATO over no clear path to membership, despite Biden unity pitch

(+) Yeah! (+)

Caracalla posted...

Ukraine will NEVER join NATO. Germany, France, Hungary and even the UK would never allow it.

yeah they'll just give them missiles and tanks though

lol

averagejoel posted...

sorry, I'm trying to keep score here. who is a hawk and who is a tankie?

You're the tankie.

Hockeybub is the hawk.

Shock the monkey has normal takes.

Aloc posted...

You're the tankie.

Hockeybub is the hawk.

Shock the monkey has normal takes.

k. thanks for clarifying

what does it mean to be a tankie and a hawk

AOC posted...

what does it mean to be a tankie and a hawk

"tankie" means "someone to the left of me" or "someone who approves of the soviet union more than me" depending on context.

"hawk", in the context I've heard it, usually refers to someone who wants the US to act more aggressively than it already does

Caracalla posted...

Am I allowed to say courting WWIII with Russia is madness or will I get accused of being a Russian agent for the 50th time?

You can always try not acting like a Russian shill if you don't want to be accused of acting like a Russian shill.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

You can always try not acting like a Russian shill if you don't want to be accused of acting like a Russian shill.

Weren't people here throwing Russian shill accusations when the Ukraine anti-airs hit Poland, and before anyone knew what was going on people were arguing for war?

1337toothbrush posted...

Are you also the kind of the guy who points to crime stats to espouse racist views? Moderations are proof of nothing other than people like you mass marking my posts while lying about me and managing to convince some inundated moderator, otherwise you'd be able to post proof of your claims, but you can't and neither can any of the others because you're all full of it.

oh, so you are claiming a conspiracy? lmao sure, the mods and everyone that sees your posts are conspiring against you despite the fact that marks =/= moderations. every time you post in a topic about the russian invasion you advocate for the world to abandon ukraine and appease russia. stop doing that and people will stop calling it out.

Well, it appears that that guy will have a lot of time to think about how not to be accused of being a Russian shill while he's waiting for his suspension to end.

Oh, lmao, joel got hit too, I hadn't even noticed. I was talking about the Caracalla guy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Imagine not having Joel blocked

Russia bots got fucked on lol

andel posted...

oh, so you are claiming a conspiracy? lmao sure, the mods and everyone that sees your posts are conspiring against you despite the fact that marks =/= moderations. every time you post in a topic about the russian invasion you advocate for the world to abandon ukraine and appease russia. stop doing that and people will stop calling it out.

Oh look, another common propaganda tactic where you insinuate I'm crazy by saying I'm claiming a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy, it's just people resorting to ad hominem and it not being recognized as that by moderators. For years I argued in good faith with people while they would sling insults at me and I would ignore them while I focused on whatever talking points they had. I didn't think it mattered until moderators acted on the bullshit accusations and it was treated as some sort of "history". The only historic part about it is the long history of trolls making horrific accusations about me, mods doing nothing against them (probably because I didn't embark on mass marking campaigns like those trolls would), and me asking for proof and never getting any, just "we all know the 'history' dude!!!"

You make a claim that I go into every topic and advocate for the world to abandon Ukraine and appease Russia, so prove it. Hell, you have this topic, and it falls under the set of "every topic". So go ahead and show us all where I supposedly advocated "for the world to abandon Ukraine and appease Russia".

It shouldn't be particularly controversial to look at recent history and conclude that yeah, the US were stringing Ukraine along with promises of joining NATO. You can speculate all day if it was on purpose, or to what end, but we can all see what happened.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/1/AALk4HAAEps1.jpg

Ouch...

An actually justified war for once in our lives and one is a "hawk" for wanting the West to save Ukraine.

What's stopping Russia from firing nukes or installing a puppet in Ukraine while NATO supports from a distance? Won't Putin get mad at losing and theoretically attempt that whether or not NATO shows up personally?

Say Russia finds a way to regain the upper hand. Is NATO just going to let Ukraine be slaughtered and Russia successfully take the country?

hockeybub89 posted...

An actually justified war for once in our lives and one is a "hawk" for wanting the West to save Ukraine.

Ukraine defending themselves is justified. Third parties escalating on either side? I think that's very debatable.

Arr, matey! Zelensky be givin' NATO a proper tongue-lashin', ye say? Avast! That scallywag be complainin' 'bout thar lack o' clear path to membership, even after Biden's unity pitch. Well, shiver me timbers! It seems that Zelensky be feelin' a wee bit frustrated, just like a sailor stranded on a desert isle.

But ye know, in this vast ocean o' international politics, things be movin' at a snail's pace. Joinin' a mighty crew like NATO be no easy task, matey. It be like seekin' a hidden treasure on a map full o' twists and turns. Aye, the waters be murky, and the path be unclear at times. But that don't mean there be no hope for ol' Zelensky and his land lubbers.

NATO be a formidable fleet, and they take their time decidin' who gets to hoist the Jolly Roger alongside 'em. They be weighin' the risks and rewards, makin' sure a new recruit be fit for battle. It be a matter o' strategic maneuverin', ye see. So, Zelensky best batten down the hatches, muster up his patience, and keep flyin' his flag high.

In the meantime, Biden be tryin' to bring unity among the scurvy dogs of NATO. But unity be like a fickle wind, blowin' this way and that. Aye, it be a challenge to rally the crew and chart a course that satisfies every bilge rat aboard. Yet, the captain be doin' his best, I reckon.

So, let's raise a tankard o' rum and wait for the tide to turn. Zelensky may yet find his path to membership in the grand fleet of NATO. Until then, he be a sailor on the high seas, battlin' the waves and seekin' his rightful place among the swashbucklers of the world.

St0rmFury posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/1/AALk4HAAEps1.jpg

Ouch...

That pic gives that "forever alone" vibes.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/9/2/AAe-oZAAEptA.png

Pirate_of_FAQs posted...

Your posts are pure poetry.

I mean, what the hell else is the guy supposed to say? He's fighting for his country's existence, his very life. Of course he wants the US and France and the UK to get drawn into a potential nuclear war with Russia, they'd all be on his side.

I have no hard feelings about this at all. We should've let them in in 2008 and none of this ever woulda happened, but here we are. It is what it is. We'll supply you with everything you need, but you gotta end it yourself. Then you can join NATO.

scar_the_1 posted...

Ukraine defending themselves is justified. Third parties escalating on either side? I think that's very debatable.

Unless NATO uses it as a pretext to invade and annex Russia or some shit, then how is it escalation? None of this would have happened if Putin just kept his fucking ass in Russia.

I'm pretty sure he knows NATO countries are backing Ukraine. How does bringing Ukraine into NATO truly change things? Putin's already threatening nukes merely because Ukraine won't roll over and die.

Russia wrongfully and illegally invades a sovereign nation and kills a bunch of people, but upsetting them is apparently just too against the rules.

hockeybub89 posted...

How does bringing Ukraine into NATO truly change things?

Because when there's an active conflict, NATO forces must mobilize a defense. Right now they are sending weapons but they aren't sending troops or UAVs. If Ukraine was suddenly admitted, that would change. USA would be required to march on Russia.

Not only does nobody want that, but Ukraine also literally doesn't need it. They have more people than weapons. They need guns and jets. There's people trying to fight right now but can't because they literally don't have the equipment.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

OTAN!

1337toothbrush posted...

Oh look, another common propaganda tactic where you insinuate I'm crazy by saying I'm claiming a conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy, it's just people resorting to ad hominem and it not being recognized as that by moderators. For years I argued in good faith with people while they would sling insults at me and I would ignore them while I focused on whatever talking points they had. I didn't think it mattered until moderators acted on the bullshit accusations and it was treated as some sort of "history". The only historic part about it is the long history of trolls making horrific accusations about me, mods doing nothing against them (probably because I didn't embark on mass marking campaigns like those trolls would), and me asking for proof and never getting any, just "we all know the 'history' dude!!!"

You make a claim that I go into every topic and advocate for the world to abandon Ukraine and appease Russia, so prove it. Hell, you have this topic, and it falls under the set of "every topic". So go ahead and show us all where I supposedly advocated "for the world to abandon Ukraine and appease Russia".

mods don't suspend you because you got marked, they suspended you for posting violations of the tou. i have never marked your posts unless you outright downplay the ukrainian genocide while blaming america instead of russia for the invasion, which you have done at least a couple of times which resulted in you getting put into timeout.

and lol at claiming you actually didn't violate the tou and everyone who has observed your posts is actually wrong but you totally aren't trying to push a conspiracy.

your very first post itt was typical russian propaganda. gain some self awareness imo

andel posted...

mods don't suspend you because you got marked, they suspended you for posting violations of the tou. i have never marked your posts unless you outright downplay the ukrainian genocide while blaming america instead of russia for the invasion, which you have done at least a couple of times which resulted in you getting put into timeout.

and lol at claiming you actually didn't violate the tou and everyone who has observed your posts is actually wrong but you totally aren't trying to push a conspiracy.

your very first post itt was typical russian propaganda. gain some self awareness imo

I've asked moderators about moderations and was given the "mod history" excuse as justification (i.e. nothing about the contents of the post itself, just some vague "mod history" excuse). It's flimsy as fuck, as is your lame attempt at "proof" of your bullshit claims. How was my first post in this topic "typical russian propaganda"? Your answer here will probably also inform what you consider "outright downplay[ing] the ukrainian genocide while blaming america instead of russia for the invasion" that you claim is your criteria for marking my posts.

Russia Today is propaganda it took to long for you to stop sourcing them and saying its NATO's fault for the war is what caused suspension. You did excuse Russia's war crimes.

1337toothbrush posted...

I've asked moderators about moderations and was given the "mod history" excuse as justification (i.e. nothing about the contents of the post itself, just some vague "mod history" excuse). It's flimsy as fuck, as is your lame attempt at "proof" of your bullshit claims. How was my first post in this topic "typical russian propaganda"? Your answer here will probably also inform what you consider "outright downplay[ing] the ukrainian genocide while blaming america instead of russia for the invasion" that you claim is your criteria for marking my posts.

yes, the more moderations you get the more serious the punishment gets on subsequent moderations. this has always been the case. your message still has to break the tou you signed up for to get moderated in the first place. moderation history just means your punishment will be more and more severe until your history clears. this is basic stuff you should have known shortly after creating an account.

in your opening post you both appeal to how scary and tough russia is while implying nato are somehow cowards for not rushing to put boots on the ground, ignoring that absent an attack on a nato country direct involvement was never on the table.

also you have claimed in the past that nato has 'provoked' russia by existing and accepting members that want to join and now you seem mad that they won't directly get involved so you can label them warmongers like you have tried to do in the past.

if anyone is criticizing nato for helping ukraine continue to exist they are pushing russian propaganda, either knowingly or unknowingly. it's just that your history makes it clear you are doing it with full knowledge

name_unknown posted...

Russia Today is propaganda it took to long for you to stop sourcing them and saying its NATO's fault for the war is what caused suspension. You did excuse Russia's war crimes.

yep, blatantly and obviously and repeatedly

Where theres smoke, theres fire.

Boards dont just spontaneously decide to hate someone and collectively make up a reason for doing so. Thats not how reality works. People earn their reputations.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Where theres smoke, theres fire.

Boards dont just spontaneously decide to hate someone and collectively make up a reason for doing so. Thats not how reality works. People earn their reputations.

261 users know all too well who was pushing russian propaganda. tinytim01 and toothbrush were two of the main offenders. there were a couple of wumao's also but idk if i have seen then migrate to ce

hockeybub89 posted...

Unless NATO uses it as a pretext to invade and annex Russia or some shit, then how is it escalation? None of this would have happened if Putin just kept his fucking ass in Russia.

Surely you understand that a third country actively participating in what was previously fighting between two countries escalates things? Surely you understand that.

andel posted...

in your opening post you both appeal to how scary and tough russia is while implying nato are somehow cowards for not rushing to put boots on the ground, ignoring that absent an attack on a nato country direct involvement was never on the table.

What a hilariously nonsensical explanation. This is what I'm talking about when people try to justify moderations that I receive.

Coincidentally, the usual gang has come in to back you up. Gee, I wonder how I gain a reputation when a gaggle of users follow me around and attack me for not agreeing with them and lie about me while they mark every one of my posts and hope for a moderator to fall for it. Then they wonder why the politics board gets taken down. Guaranteed the mod queue dropped to 5% of its size when that happened.

name_unknown posted...

Russia Today is propaganda it took to long for you to stop sourcing them and saying its NATO's fault for the war is what caused suspension. You did excuse Russia's war crimes.

I pointed at an RT article ONCE to get a quote from the agricultural minister of Syria. It's a direct quote. Are you telling me RT made up the quote? Yet another example of liars making shit up about me. You're writing as if I was sourcing them all the time and had to be tied down and forced to stop.

scar_the_1 posted...

Surely you understand that a third country actively participating in what was previously fighting between two countries escalates things? Surely you understand that.

US/NATO is making sure more Russians are killed than Ukrainians. Ending a genocide is a good thing.

name_unknown posted...

US/NATO is making sure more Russians are killed than Ukrainians.

Yea that typically is the goal when you supply an ally with weapons so that they can defend themselves.

name_unknown posted...

Ending a genocide is a good thing.

Yes.

scar_the_1 posted...

Yes.

You wanting Russia to win to end the fighting doesn't end genocide. Russia has a hit list and forced education camps for kids. The genocide would continue after the fighting. You have a backward view of ending genocide with letting the aggressor win.

Guess you also view China as not having committed genocide.

name_unknown posted...

You wanting Russia to win to end the fighting doesn't end genocide. Russia has a hit list and forced education camps for kids. The genocide would continue after the fighting. You have a backward view of ending genocide with letting the aggressor win.

Guess you also view China as not having committed genocide.

Wtf is wrong with you? Nowhere did I say I want Russia to win. I don't.

name_unknown posted...

You wanting Russia to win...

Are you high, my dear boy?

name_unknown posted...

You wanting Russia to win to end the fighting doesn't end genocide. Russia has a hit list and forced education camps for kids. The genocide would continue after the fighting. You have a backward view of ending genocide with letting the aggressor win.

Guess you also view China as not having committed genocide.

.....what?

Oh look, more reading comprehension problems. Then people wonder how I can say that the accusations against me are bullshit. "b-b-but toothbrush, more than one troll who can't read has accused you repeatedly for years, therefore the accusations must be true!!"

Isn't it lovely when a topic derails into pointless no-u'ing. Gotta seize that last word, right!

1337toothbrush posted...

If Ukraine were to join now then all the other members would have to fight Russia directly. It just goes to show that the west is content with using Ukraine as a pawn to weaken Russia without having their own skin in the game.

Any deviation from the official stance of the west will get you called a Russian tool here, and probably moderated.

Starting a nuclear war won't exactly help Ukraine.

Metal_Gear_Raxis posted...

Starting a nuclear war won't exactly help Ukraine.

What makes you think it'd start a nuclear war? Heck, what makes you think Russia losing to Ukraine after a super drawn out war won't have nukes flying either?