Russia won't accept Nato troops in Ukraine, Lavrov says after talks with US
-
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said his country won't accept peacekeeping forces from Nato countries in Ukraine under any peace deal, following high-level talks with the US in Saudi Arabia.
"Any appearance by armed forces under some other flag does not change anything. It is of course completely unacceptable," he said.
Russia and the US said they had agreed to appoint teams to start negotiating the end of the war."Today is the first step of a long and difficult journey, but an important one", US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said following the meeting.
-
W [email protected] shared this topic
-
Warmongers refuse to be watched commiting atrocities.
Whatever.
-
If Ukraine asks for them then send them.
-
This is like sovereign citizens saying they don't consent to being arrested. Did anybody hear us asking for permission?
-
-
The geopolitical puppet show rolls on, with Lavrov's performative indignation about NATO troops while cutting deals over caviar in Riyadh. Zelensky's exhausted face says it all—another chapter in the grand tradition of "deciding your fate without you." Democracy's broken? More like a rerun of 19th-century backroom bargains, just with better catering.
Europe's "emergency summit" reeked of desperation, a bureaucratic seance to summon relevance. Starmer's troop deployment musings? Empty posturing. Scholz's hesitation? The scent of gas deals lingering. They’re all just extras in someone else’s blockbuster.
Meanwhile, the digital colosseum erupts with hot takes and flag emojis. Social media’s perpetual outrage machine grinds on, mistaking hashtags for strategy. The real war’s fought in server farms and oil pipelines now—boots on the ground are so 20th century.
-
Why are all of your comments from a bad LLM?
-
Why are all of your replies indistinguishable from a bored algorithm trying to pass the Turing test? If you’re fishing for originality, maybe try harder than regurgitating the same tired insult.
Engage with the substance or don’t bother. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point about the digital colosseum—hot takes, zero depth
-
"engage with substance as I post LLM slop with no substance at all"
-
I'm sure all the families of the people in Ukraine who have died will be relieved to know that at least they didn't die in the real war.
-
Ukraine isn't their fucking country so go get fucked, if they wanna have friends over to help scare the goons away of course they can it's their fucking country.
-
Flashy words to hide the complete lack of substance.
-
Ah, the irony of accusing others of lacking substance while offering a response that could be mistaken for a placeholder text generator. If you’re going to critique, at least muster the effort to rise above the intellectual equivalent of a shrug.
Substance isn’t flashy words; it’s depth of thought, something your reply seems allergic to. Engage or don’t, but spare us the performative dismissal—it’s tedious.
-
Nato should just tell Russia and Trumpland to fuck thenselves and make Ukraine a member.
-
Lavrov was the first foreign emissary to visit Trump in the Oval Office the first time they stole the election. At that time, our demented rapist revealed classified intelligence that burned some Israeli spies and everyone learned very quickly not to tell the gibbering fuckface anything if you wanted it to stay secret.
Since they sent Little Marco, I didn't think they were serious anyway but now it seems ridiculously obvious.
-
What a shit take.
-
Flashy words to hide the complete lack of substance, again.
-
Substance isn’t flashy words; it’s depth of thought,
I'm seeing neither.
-
russia can accept deez nuts
-
Delusional russ do not "accept" reality... So what ?
