Where to begin?
There has been much made of the shit show in the Oval Office last Friday (March 28, 2025) as Trump and Vance went total dick on Zelensky, so I won't here.
One of the dumbest things I heard regarding it was from someone I know, who said that being anti-Zelensky wasn't pro-Putin. That might be the dumbest bit of pedantry I've ever read.
Let's be truthful here. Both of those men are leaders of their respective nations. One presides over an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. The other presides over a nation fighting back against said invasion. That's as basic as it gets, but there's important context. So let's go there.
Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. It borders the Black Sea to the south, Russia to the north and east, and Belarus to the north and west. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Before that, Ukraine had been an SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) under the control of the greater Soviet Union. It was not part of Russia, as many declare (out of ignorance).
Prior to the Soviet era, Ukraine was briefly independent after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. During the Russian Civil War, there were partisans for the Red Army (that sought to join the revolution that the Bolsheviks began), the White Army (that sought to reestablish the Empire and Monarchy), and Ukrainian Separatists. To say that Ukraine has always been part of Russia, as Putin has asserted, is plainly false.
Let's return to the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991. During the Soviet Era, Ukraine's geography made it strategically important. Its agricultural output also made it a vital piece of territory. Ukraine declared independence, which was, in turn, recognized by most of the world, including the United States. Fun fact here: Ukraine at the time of independence had one-third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. In the interest of world peace and nuclear non-proliferation, Ukraine agreed to surrender the warheads in exchange for security guarantees. This agreement is known as the Budapest Memorandum. In it, the United States (and other nations) guarantees Ukraine's borders in exchange for the surrender of the nukes for destruction.
So historically, Russia has tried to subsume Ukraine into Russia going back to the 19th century, and at the same time, Ukraine has sought independence from Russia.
So, "being anti-Zelenskyy isn't the same as pro-Putin" is plain dumb. People in the conspiratorial camp like to note that Zelenskyy is a dictator because he canceled elections during a war. Guess how many elections England held during WWII. Zero. Does that make Churchill a dictator? Dumbass. They also like to point to his stealing the money conspiracy. One, we're not sending money; we're extending credit to buy our extra weapons (because we'll just buy more from us). It's a huge benefit to defense contractors and their employees. And, if he was stealing money, why is he staying in a war zone? Seriously. Do better
Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. That's all that matters. Being anti-Putin is the point, and to borrow the comparison, being anti-Putin doesn't make you pro-Zelensky, but any sensible person should be anti-Putin. Focusing on any other related topic is a diversion, plain and simple. Russia invaded a sovereign country without provocation, and seeking closer relations with the EU or NATO isn't provocation. It's a nation's right of sovereignty to seek its own way.
Russia's war is a war of aggression. Doing nothing is akin to the world doing nothing when Germany invaded the Sudetanland unprovoked or when the world did nothing when Italy invaded Abyssinia unprovoked or when the world did nothing when Spanish Nationalists overthrew an elected government and established a military dictatorship.
We're the appeasers this time. We're Chamberlain. How does that feel?
