Zelenskyy states Russia lost battlefield initiative in Dec 2025, arguing Ukraine has a diplomacy window before winter if sanctions pressure on Russia continues.
Look, take it easy. I know you are a kid, because you lack the self-confidence to ask people what they mean (and you shared a cartoon). But I can tell you, people that ask look way smarter than people that try to make it into a weird confrontation.
Today you can just paste stuff into chatgpt or something and let it explain and for sure write a better response than you did, no offense.
Plus, if you want an honest exchange of opinion, you must likely won’t get it with an arrogant behavior, but by taking a few minutes and replying with something thoughtful. You got my 10 minutes, but that’s done. Have a nice evening.
At the core of the defense paradigm. Since Ukraine has a gigantic military (currently more personnel than even France), pretty cutting edge work on drone and anti-drone warfare and has been fighting for years against the EU’s biggest land threat. They’re not saying Ukraine is at the core of Europe the continent…
Previously the European states learned that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well. They’re on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, are subject to Russian influence operations that are not especially appreciated and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity. Plus the occasional bombing and constant rhetoric against them. So obviously they will prefer to back Ukraine rather than letting Russia absorb it, become stronger and start eyeing the next country.
that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well
Which power was that?
and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
and constant rhetoric against them
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Germany and the USSR were carving off regions and conquering small states left and right in the lead-up to WWII, both in independent adventures and their team-up via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Munich Agreement is pretty egregious with Hitler claiming it was the last territorial demand he had in Europe and Chamberlain coming back claiming he had achieved peace for our time. Only for it to turn out that Germany would use all the fortifications, industry, manpower and resources it had gained at the expense of its neighbor to roll over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So Germany became a much more imposing force than it had started out as because folks were content to just watch it snowball and not help Czechoslovakia defend itself.
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
The rhetoric does matter when Russian politicians are threatening the EU all the time by saying they’ll nuke them, that ex. Baltic independence isn’t legal, that they’re states at war, etc. But there’s concrete action too. A Russian drone strike just hit an apartment in Romania and Medvedev is saying it won’t be the last one. They’ve set off parcel bombs in EU countries. Blown up ammunition depots. Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries, cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit… and even if it weren’t doing all of that, a country that conquers smaller neighbors is plenty concerning on its own.
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That’s the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I’m sure that, considering you’re claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you’re now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
Are you talking about a new conflict and not the current literal invasion? Because they kinda already crossed that bridge. Then it got blown up like 2 or 3 times.
“Europe” is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to “Europe”, which is what the conversation you’re responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it’s a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
Ukraine isn’t at the core of Europe though
Read again slowly.
Sit down and actually think about your statements.
How about you read the full sentence, dude.
I see someone has explained the obvious already, so I’ll just defer to them.
the obvious being you guys don’t know what paradigm means, or that you have no reason to claim Ukraine is central to European defense against Russia?
Excuse me, but proactive and paradigm? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
I’m sorry the word paradigm confuses you, but we do have dictionaries. It’s easy too check the meaning of the word and not look stupid.
Also, if you don’t know what someone means, you can also ask, not just think they are stupid because you don’t understand them.
It doesn’t confuse me. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, as Ukraine is not a template.
Look, take it easy. I know you are a kid, because you lack the self-confidence to ask people what they mean (and you shared a cartoon). But I can tell you, people that ask look way smarter than people that try to make it into a weird confrontation. Today you can just paste stuff into chatgpt or something and let it explain and for sure write a better response than you did, no offense. Plus, if you want an honest exchange of opinion, you must likely won’t get it with an arrogant behavior, but by taking a few minutes and replying with something thoughtful. You got my 10 minutes, but that’s done. Have a nice evening.
Yeah, I’m middle-aged. You’re on quite a roll here.
Just don’t use words you don’t understand, it’s a bad look.
At the core of the defense paradigm. Since Ukraine has a gigantic military (currently more personnel than even France), pretty cutting edge work on drone and anti-drone warfare and has been fighting for years against the EU’s biggest land threat. They’re not saying Ukraine is at the core of Europe the continent…
Why is Russia the “EU’s biggest land threat”?
That’s exactly the point. Allying with Ukraine is the main thing that drives that.
Previously the European states learned that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well. They’re on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, are subject to Russian influence operations that are not especially appreciated and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity. Plus the occasional bombing and constant rhetoric against them. So obviously they will prefer to back Ukraine rather than letting Russia absorb it, become stronger and start eyeing the next country.
Which power was that?
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Germany and the USSR were carving off regions and conquering small states left and right in the lead-up to WWII, both in independent adventures and their team-up via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Munich Agreement is pretty egregious with Hitler claiming it was the last territorial demand he had in Europe and Chamberlain coming back claiming he had achieved peace for our time. Only for it to turn out that Germany would use all the fortifications, industry, manpower and resources it had gained at the expense of its neighbor to roll over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So Germany became a much more imposing force than it had started out as because folks were content to just watch it snowball and not help Czechoslovakia defend itself.
The rhetoric does matter when Russian politicians are threatening the EU all the time by saying they’ll nuke them, that ex. Baltic independence isn’t legal, that they’re states at war, etc. But there’s concrete action too. A Russian drone strike just hit an apartment in Romania and Medvedev is saying it won’t be the last one. They’ve set off parcel bombs in EU countries. Blown up ammunition depots. Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries, cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit… and even if it weren’t doing all of that, a country that conquers smaller neighbors is plenty concerning on its own.
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That’s the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I’m sure that, considering you’re claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you’re now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
Now try reading the entire sentence!
spoiler
Ukraine is at the core of the defence paradigm … not the core of Europe.
Defense of what? Using words you don’t understand doesn’t change the fact you haven’t defined what you’re trying to say.
Which is basically a tautology that just sees fighting Russia as a good thing on its own, but without any reason given.
So again, sit down and actually think about what you’re trying to say. You’ll come off far less stupid.
It’s the only one that has real experience with modern warfare and technology in this century. So they have know how.
It’s going to be the outpost for the new EU/Nato does not matter where it geographically is, maybe you took that too literally.
Why does Europe want to ally with Ukraine? That will cause the conflict with Russia that you’re presumably saying we need defense against.
Are you talking about a new conflict and not the current literal invasion? Because they kinda already crossed that bridge. Then it got blown up like 2 or 3 times.
Sorry, are you trying to claim that Russia has invaded an EU member?
No we use logic and not this back to the future Wodka brain trolling logic. Therefore we do not claim that, no…
Ok, so what literal invasion are you talking about?
You go figure that out on your own, Ivan…
Thanks for sharing you have no answer. How’s the weather in Langley?
you got that Gulag brain
Nah, just giving your mom my Mexican dick
Europe includes Ukraine, and they are already allies, just without a mutual defense agreement.
Ukraine is not a member of any defense pact or the EU.
Ukraine receives security assurances under the Budapest memorandum (which Russia violated).
“Europe” is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to “Europe”, which is what the conversation you’re responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it’s a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
Europe also includes Russia
So Europe is supposed to support Ukraine against . . . Europe?
the United States is halfway around the world, that doesn’t stop us from projecting power
How’s that working out for you?
Doesn’t matter how big your dick is when you’re trying to fuck a hornet nest.