Wallabag.

I self-host my own instace, save articles I want to read from my laptop, and then they sync with the app on my phone. I read them offline when I have some time to kill

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.