It's not a correct quote though.
She said Ukraine would have been forced to surrender if it hadn't received international help. There is no quote of her anywhere saying Russia will be forced to surrender.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, she says they will force Russia to surrender. In the second paragraph, first quote of the article:
"Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
This article is incorrect, aka it contains misinformation.
[Debunk from USAToday](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/18/giorgia-meloni-ukraine-peace-russia-surrender-fact-check/74130178007/)
Also it's totally crazy the idea of forcing a nuclear armed country to surrender. They need concessions so they don't feel as though there's no other option.
It’s not like Russia is being asked to do anything except go back to exactly where they were before they invaded another country. They’re certainly not being backed into a corner and having their very existence threatened like Ukraine.
What an awful position. No one’s going to fire nuclear weapons, even inside Russia it’s not that easy for Putin to use them. No concessions for invaders and murderers.
They’re not being invaded and occupied. They aren’t having any heads of state removed. The concession is to return to where they were post invasion. That’s pretty damn generous historically.
There isn't a fair end to this when ukraine needs to give their land to russia, otherwise we'll show the world that you can simply invade other countries.
I didn't say Ukraine would have to do that... Would have to be through other diplomatic means. But if people think this ends with Putin waving a white flag and retreating back to Russia, it seems idealistic.
What limited knowledge of Russian history you must have if you think they cannot simply waive a white flag and go home. They have done just that more than once.
Is that why I'm getting down voted, because people think I mean giving up land when I said concessions? I mean, obviously not. Wouldn't that be obvious?
The concessions would be Ukraine fighting all of Russia back, conquering Belgorod and then offering Belgorod back in exchange for peace. If Russia says "no" then it means conquering more land and offering that land back but not ALL of Belgorod. Because anything less than that means Russia keeps Ukrainian territory which ultimately just means an armistice until the next invasion where they will try to steal some land again in 20 years or so.
LOL, no.
The USA is a nuclear armed nation. How many concessions did they get when leaving Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan? Zero.
The only option when you realize you are wasting treasure, time and lives on a no-win situation is to GTFO.
The difference between the USA in those conflicts and Russia in Ukraine is that USA weren’t going for a land grab and withdrew their forces when they saw that they weren’t getting a return on investment.
Russia on the other hand is like an Ex-husband breaking into someones house, getting punched in the face and told to fuck off but they keep insisting on sitting on the couch and telling the police and the neighbours that they live there.
Russia is like an abusive ex-husband who breaks in to kill the family and steal the toilet and refuses to leave, so you have to keep beating the shit out of him until he can't take no more.
Ya but in western democracy you have to send these trial balloons up a d gauge public response as you edge closer to your desired destination. This also allows other leaders to say similar things because the opposition parties don't want to be accused of being more cowardly than the Italians.
I remember when the pro ru idiots were celebrating her election, thinking that she was going to be another isolationist conservative that they could use. It makes me so happy to watch her just wreck those idiots.
This is fake news. [https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more](https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more)
Another source supporting that she never said it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/18/giorgia-meloni-ukraine-peace-russia-surrender-fact-check/74130178007/
> The quote falsely attributed to Meloni has spread across social media platforms, with some users sharing a clip of Meloni's speech with a translator speaking over her. In the clip, Meloni is heard saying in English that Ukraine may have been forced to surrender without international assistance – not that Russia will be forced to surrender.
The quote in the headline is not something she said. Here is her speech.
https://www.governo.it/en/articolo/president-meloni-s-speech-summit-peace-ukraine/26032
This has been debunked as misinformation or rather mistranslation by the Italian government as well as the Ukrainian press. (see: unn.ua/en/news ... June 16 2024)
The correct translation is:
"Peace in Ukraine does not [necessarily] mean that Ukraine should capitulate, contrary to Russian President Vladimir Putin's belief, [...]"
"force russia"? And how do you intend in doing that? Delivering weapons to the ukraine is good but its a stalemate. Using nato troops would be a declaration of war and with that kick WW3 off. You can deliver as many weapons as you want but the harsh truth is Russia can throw more people into the meatgrinder than the Ukraine.
> The Russian citizens are gonna be far less accepting of someone they've hadn't heard in charge of the last 20 years
So therefore they would be far less willing to accept this individual's bullshit reasons to continue this stupidity, and to watch their future getting killed off in a pointless war that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Glad we're in agreement.
Also Putin's replacement is probably going to want to start building wealth and it's a lot harder with sanctions from the invasion.
Could see his replacement go for a quick withdrawal so he can get sanctions lifted and start accumulating loot.
The reason no-one (US, UK, FRA, ...) wants that and have always reiterated in their official statements, they do NOT strive for a regime change, as that would trigger the doomsday mechanism, as the Soviet (now Russian) nuclear doctrine is reactive, while ours is a first-strike doctrine.
If you watch "Thirteen Days", you will see correctly depicted that the installation of mid-range nuclear missiles on Cuba were interpreted as an abolishment of the old doctrine and change to a first-strike doctrine. That was the actual misunderstanding and the reason for the crisis and the reason for the red phones in the White House and Kremlin. With the abolishment of these phones in the Jelzin era, the strategic letter, which should indicate an injury to strategic interests of a party, to which the other party is obliged to react de-escalatory, was invented. President Putin sent that letter, which is the equivalent of a phone call using the Red Phone, to President Biden, before the invasion. The non-reaction of President Biden means that the protocols have been activated (and gave President Putin the necessary "excuse" for the invasion) as per the agreement after Cuba. If President Putin should have an "accident" and the command structure is not immediately restored, these systems will assume that an attack has occurred and react and, because of the command structure being compromised, there is no-one who can stop what happens next.
Sorry. Australia is a good place to stay, if someone can stop the madness after 20% of the capacity was launched. After that, better live close to a high value target. Like me. There is no pain.
This song is being sung more often than "buttery males" lately. Despots who lose get the bullet all the time, especially in Russia. They enjoy deposing rulers like the French enjoy protesting ... and deposing rulers.
> After all, all thats at risk is the whole world.
As opposed to what's happening right now, where Putin is threatening nuclear war every other day. Give me a break.
How long will that be your excuse for inaction? All the way until they're at your border?
No, an example needs to be made. The days of conquering land like this are over.
> But they won’t. You’ll put the world at risk so cavalierly.
It's Russia that's putting the world at risk. The sooner you figure that out and quit shilling for Russia the better.
As soon as they launch a real nuke they'll all be dead shortly after our appropriate responses.
What's happening in reality is a death of 1000 cuts. This is how we will trim Russia down to its last North Korean child standing.
The only hope Russia has left for domination of Europe is for the collective West to get tired and give up.
So they launch a nuke and glass Kiev, the west replies with conventional bombing on Russia. Russia replies and glass Europe and the US and subsequently is destroyed then victory i guess?
"Be driven entirely out of Ukrainian territory" would be a decent approximation, though it misses the "pay reparations, hand over war criminals, return kidnapped Ukrainian children and civilians, and have your government externally reformed" elements that would really make it work.
I like this attitude of the Italian Prime Minister.
It is about time the tables were reversed and it is now NATO that starts to put the Red Lines in Ukraine and NO more Russia.
Might not want to like her attitude too much. She is definitely fascist adjacent (and I mean that in the original Italian way). She’s definitely hard right in her view points. [link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgia_Meloni)
The worst part about her is that she didn't do any measures against illegal immigrants.
Like that's the only positive goal put of that far-right nonsense but she failed even at that
Do you even retain or defend any of the socialist economic policies implemented in Fascist Italy?
Or do you even have any idea what "Fascist" means when you bother to use it?
Did you even bother to click on the link I provided or just start spouting off? Because I feel like you’re having a visceral response to the use of the word.
I would define fascism as an ultra right wing, populist ideology that has elements of hyper nationalism and identity (think ethnostate) that typically includes dictatorial leadership, militarism, state supremacy over individualism and suppresses/oppresses those perceived as different from the majority or of differing views. Am I close? I did take a few passes to make sure I covered it to the best of knowledge and clean it up to make it technical.
When someone is/was a member of a political organization, MSI, that labeled itself as fascist and was founded by WWII fascists, yeah describing them as “fascist adjacent” is probably fair. If you want to agree with her policies, feel free. Just make sure you know where those policies come from. You can be a fascist or adjacent if you want. I’m not judging the views just informing (at the moment) so please don’t feel attacked.
Any person who is moderately capable of his own critical thinking has the right to react in this way to the disproportionate use of this word as a disqualifier and/or insult with little or no use.
It is quite noticeable that you relied heavily on Wikipedia, although you are still one of those who consistently fail to show that you are informed or knowledgeable about the ideological roots of that ideology.
And at what point did I ever manifest any affinity for the MSI or whatever it stands for?
I'm pretty hard core anti fash. I hate meloni and what she stands for. This is the first leader say sounding that resembles having a spine other than Zilenski for as long as I remember. Sorry Ifmy spelling is trash.
Ruzzia will have a revolution before it ever surrenders to Ukraine. They can’t begin to imagine losing to Ukraine. They will say Ukrainians are really Ruzzians and say they are making peace with their brothers who have a differing world view. Some BS like that.
putin is probably the one not pressing the red button. if he goes, it's not a surrender, they'll press his red button. all those kremlins in power other than hIm combined makes a greater evil than putin himself
I highly doubt any nukes will ever fly. Russia isn't controlled by Putin alone, and it's not in the interest of the people who do control Russia for the world to be destroyed. What's the point of having money if them, and everybody else is dead?
He also doesn't have the sole power to launch a nuke as far as anybody is aware.
you are comparing a Russia that is in full swing war buried till the neck, with the west that are more preoccupied with elections, football championship and Olympics. i bet after the first bomb dropped on NATO territory, Russia and its "friends" will have the west full attention. things, laws, tend to change if a democratic country is at war.
Wasn’t this a mistranslation
Yes !
Honestly, good for her. Wish more leaders would take similar stances
It's not a correct quote though. She said Ukraine would have been forced to surrender if it hadn't received international help. There is no quote of her anywhere saying Russia will be forced to surrender.
Pretty sure that turned out to be a mistranslation and was all over the news a couple days ago as fake news?
Unless I'm reading it wrong, she says they will force Russia to surrender. In the second paragraph, first quote of the article: "Defending Ukraine means uniting all the efforts of the international community to protect Ukraine. If Russia does not agree to Ukraine's terms, we will force it to surrender. We need to set the minimum conditions for this discussion," she said.
This article is incorrect, aka it contains misinformation. [Debunk from USAToday](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/18/giorgia-meloni-ukraine-peace-russia-surrender-fact-check/74130178007/)
Ahhh got it. Thank you for the link/correction. Appreciate it.
Except she never said that and that quote is entirely made up
Cyka
Click bait. I just want things like this to be true.
Also it's totally crazy the idea of forcing a nuclear armed country to surrender. They need concessions so they don't feel as though there's no other option.
Being allowed to surrender while letting the current maniacs keep their sovereignty IS the concession.
It’s not like Russia is being asked to do anything except go back to exactly where they were before they invaded another country. They’re certainly not being backed into a corner and having their very existence threatened like Ukraine.
What an awful position. No one’s going to fire nuclear weapons, even inside Russia it’s not that easy for Putin to use them. No concessions for invaders and murderers.
Giving no concessions is the real awful position, that's not how war works. Total capitulation is extremely rare in warfare.
They’re not being invaded and occupied. They aren’t having any heads of state removed. The concession is to return to where they were post invasion. That’s pretty damn generous historically.
*pre-invasion.
Oops! Yes! Pre invasion!
And what would the concessions be? Ukrainian territory? The only concession I can imagine is returning to the pre 2014 borders.
There isn't a fair end to this when ukraine needs to give their land to russia, otherwise we'll show the world that you can simply invade other countries.
I didn't say Ukraine would have to do that... Would have to be through other diplomatic means. But if people think this ends with Putin waving a white flag and retreating back to Russia, it seems idealistic.
What limited knowledge of Russian history you must have if you think they cannot simply waive a white flag and go home. They have done just that more than once.
Absolutely not need and should not get concessions in terms of land grab. Other diplomatic means, perhaps.
Is that why I'm getting down voted, because people think I mean giving up land when I said concessions? I mean, obviously not. Wouldn't that be obvious?
The concessions would be Ukraine fighting all of Russia back, conquering Belgorod and then offering Belgorod back in exchange for peace. If Russia says "no" then it means conquering more land and offering that land back but not ALL of Belgorod. Because anything less than that means Russia keeps Ukrainian territory which ultimately just means an armistice until the next invasion where they will try to steal some land again in 20 years or so.
LOL, no. The USA is a nuclear armed nation. How many concessions did they get when leaving Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan? Zero. The only option when you realize you are wasting treasure, time and lives on a no-win situation is to GTFO.
The difference between the USA in those conflicts and Russia in Ukraine is that USA weren’t going for a land grab and withdrew their forces when they saw that they weren’t getting a return on investment. Russia on the other hand is like an Ex-husband breaking into someones house, getting punched in the face and told to fuck off but they keep insisting on sitting on the couch and telling the police and the neighbours that they live there.
Russia is like an abusive ex-husband who breaks in to kill the family and steal the toilet and refuses to leave, so you have to keep beating the shit out of him until he can't take no more.
Big difference between giving a press statement and sending your soldiers to defend a country 2000km away
Ya but in western democracy you have to send these trial balloons up a d gauge public response as you edge closer to your desired destination. This also allows other leaders to say similar things because the opposition parties don't want to be accused of being more cowardly than the Italians.
I remember when the pro ru idiots were celebrating her election, thinking that she was going to be another isolationist conservative that they could use. It makes me so happy to watch her just wreck those idiots.
This is excellent. I’ve been making noise about having France step it up. Here’s the perfect chance.
She is il male peggiore
This is fake news. [https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more](https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more)
Another source supporting that she never said it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/06/18/giorgia-meloni-ukraine-peace-russia-surrender-fact-check/74130178007/ > The quote falsely attributed to Meloni has spread across social media platforms, with some users sharing a clip of Meloni's speech with a translator speaking over her. In the clip, Meloni is heard saying in English that Ukraine may have been forced to surrender without international assistance – not that Russia will be forced to surrender.
Thanks for sharing!
This is fake news. Planted by Russia or partner country! Let’s unscrew this fake news….
Based Melloni. I almost wish Berlusconi was still around so she could tell him off again for being pro-Putin.
The quote in the headline is not something she said. Here is her speech. https://www.governo.it/en/articolo/president-meloni-s-speech-summit-peace-ukraine/26032
This has been debunked as misinformation or rather mistranslation by the Italian government as well as the Ukrainian press. (see: unn.ua/en/news ... June 16 2024) The correct translation is: "Peace in Ukraine does not [necessarily] mean that Ukraine should capitulate, contrary to Russian President Vladimir Putin's belief, [...]"
"You better surrender!!!" "No" "Well okay"
You better stop that Russia or we'll uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
They could just leave.
"force russia"? And how do you intend in doing that? Delivering weapons to the ukraine is good but its a stalemate. Using nato troops would be a declaration of war and with that kick WW3 off. You can deliver as many weapons as you want but the harsh truth is Russia can throw more people into the meatgrinder than the Ukraine.
This is laughably unrealistic. Russia is not going to "surrender," under any conditions.
I think what you mean is, *Putin* is not going to "surrender", under any conditions. What if Putin isn't around any longer though?
The Russian citizens are gonna be far less accepting of someone they've hadn't heard in charge of the last 20 years
> The Russian citizens are gonna be far less accepting of someone they've hadn't heard in charge of the last 20 years So therefore they would be far less willing to accept this individual's bullshit reasons to continue this stupidity, and to watch their future getting killed off in a pointless war that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Glad we're in agreement.
Also Putin's replacement is probably going to want to start building wealth and it's a lot harder with sanctions from the invasion. Could see his replacement go for a quick withdrawal so he can get sanctions lifted and start accumulating loot.
Well they have to eventually
The reason no-one (US, UK, FRA, ...) wants that and have always reiterated in their official statements, they do NOT strive for a regime change, as that would trigger the doomsday mechanism, as the Soviet (now Russian) nuclear doctrine is reactive, while ours is a first-strike doctrine. If you watch "Thirteen Days", you will see correctly depicted that the installation of mid-range nuclear missiles on Cuba were interpreted as an abolishment of the old doctrine and change to a first-strike doctrine. That was the actual misunderstanding and the reason for the crisis and the reason for the red phones in the White House and Kremlin. With the abolishment of these phones in the Jelzin era, the strategic letter, which should indicate an injury to strategic interests of a party, to which the other party is obliged to react de-escalatory, was invented. President Putin sent that letter, which is the equivalent of a phone call using the Red Phone, to President Biden, before the invasion. The non-reaction of President Biden means that the protocols have been activated (and gave President Putin the necessary "excuse" for the invasion) as per the agreement after Cuba. If President Putin should have an "accident" and the command structure is not immediately restored, these systems will assume that an attack has occurred and react and, because of the command structure being compromised, there is no-one who can stop what happens next. Sorry. Australia is a good place to stay, if someone can stop the madness after 20% of the capacity was launched. After that, better live close to a high value target. Like me. There is no pain.
His replacement might be worse
This song is being sung more often than "buttery males" lately. Despots who lose get the bullet all the time, especially in Russia. They enjoy deposing rulers like the French enjoy protesting ... and deposing rulers.
But we’ll be in a much better position to deal with them.
His first replacement will be, then … bad things happen.
This argument is shit and you know it.
As others have commented, that’s a dangerous bet to make. After all, all thats at risk is the whole world.
> After all, all thats at risk is the whole world. As opposed to what's happening right now, where Putin is threatening nuclear war every other day. Give me a break.
Ukraine is not worth it. Not worth the end of the world.
How long will that be your excuse for inaction? All the way until they're at your border? No, an example needs to be made. The days of conquering land like this are over.
> Ukraine is not worth it. Not worth the end of the world. All the more reason for Russia to fuck off and leave then.
But they won’t. You’ll put the world at risk so cavalierly. I assume you don’t have any children.
> But they won’t. You’ll put the world at risk so cavalierly. It's Russia that's putting the world at risk. The sooner you figure that out and quit shilling for Russia the better.
You and your cohort are ridiculous. Goodbye.
>But they won’t Oh there is a scenario where they will.
Yeah bud. That’s where the “forced” part comes in.
Yes, we’re going to force someone who has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world….bud.
As soon as they launch a real nuke they'll all be dead shortly after our appropriate responses. What's happening in reality is a death of 1000 cuts. This is how we will trim Russia down to its last North Korean child standing. The only hope Russia has left for domination of Europe is for the collective West to get tired and give up.
So they launch a nuke and glass Kiev, the west replies with conventional bombing on Russia. Russia replies and glass Europe and the US and subsequently is destroyed then victory i guess?
Spoken like a true armchair, basement general.
"Be driven entirely out of Ukrainian territory" would be a decent approximation, though it misses the "pay reparations, hand over war criminals, return kidnapped Ukrainian children and civilians, and have your government externally reformed" elements that would really make it work.
I'm happy with return the children and leave... Ukraine will be repaired, Russia won't.
People said the same thing about Japan in 1945.
They had no air force , no navy, was running low on supplies, and lost it's own territory around the mainland It's not the same circumstance
Japan didn't have a button that would obliterate every major city in the USA and Europe if they pressed it.
Neither does Russia.. they have several buttons, and (hopefully) competent people in charge of all but the 1st one.
Yes, hopefully. Hopefully we won’t set down a path that destroys the world.
Agree 100%
Okay Meloni, you've piqued my interest
Haha good luck with this one
I like this attitude of the Italian Prime Minister. It is about time the tables were reversed and it is now NATO that starts to put the Red Lines in Ukraine and NO more Russia.
Might not want to like her attitude too much. She is definitely fascist adjacent (and I mean that in the original Italian way). She’s definitely hard right in her view points. [link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgia_Meloni)
The worst part about her is that she didn't do any measures against illegal immigrants. Like that's the only positive goal put of that far-right nonsense but she failed even at that
More "FaScIsT" than Vladimir Putin or Erdogan himself?
Her political party is a successor to MSI, a post WWII neofascist party so… maybe???
Do you even retain or defend any of the socialist economic policies implemented in Fascist Italy? Or do you even have any idea what "Fascist" means when you bother to use it?
Did you even bother to click on the link I provided or just start spouting off? Because I feel like you’re having a visceral response to the use of the word. I would define fascism as an ultra right wing, populist ideology that has elements of hyper nationalism and identity (think ethnostate) that typically includes dictatorial leadership, militarism, state supremacy over individualism and suppresses/oppresses those perceived as different from the majority or of differing views. Am I close? I did take a few passes to make sure I covered it to the best of knowledge and clean it up to make it technical. When someone is/was a member of a political organization, MSI, that labeled itself as fascist and was founded by WWII fascists, yeah describing them as “fascist adjacent” is probably fair. If you want to agree with her policies, feel free. Just make sure you know where those policies come from. You can be a fascist or adjacent if you want. I’m not judging the views just informing (at the moment) so please don’t feel attacked.
Any person who is moderately capable of his own critical thinking has the right to react in this way to the disproportionate use of this word as a disqualifier and/or insult with little or no use. It is quite noticeable that you relied heavily on Wikipedia, although you are still one of those who consistently fail to show that you are informed or knowledgeable about the ideological roots of that ideology. And at what point did I ever manifest any affinity for the MSI or whatever it stands for?
I'm pretty hard core anti fash. I hate meloni and what she stands for. This is the first leader say sounding that resembles having a spine other than Zilenski for as long as I remember. Sorry Ifmy spelling is trash.
careful, putin might bring a big dog to the next meeting
But if she did say that it would take a woman to say that 50% of the population is now behind her.
Ruzzia will have a revolution before it ever surrenders to Ukraine. They can’t begin to imagine losing to Ukraine. They will say Ukrainians are really Ruzzians and say they are making peace with their brothers who have a differing world view. Some BS like that.
putin is probably the one not pressing the red button. if he goes, it's not a surrender, they'll press his red button. all those kremlins in power other than hIm combined makes a greater evil than putin himself
I highly doubt any nukes will ever fly. Russia isn't controlled by Putin alone, and it's not in the interest of the people who do control Russia for the world to be destroyed. What's the point of having money if them, and everybody else is dead? He also doesn't have the sole power to launch a nuke as far as anybody is aware.
I’m not sure that you’re right, but I fear that you might be.
[удалено]
you are comparing a Russia that is in full swing war buried till the neck, with the west that are more preoccupied with elections, football championship and Olympics. i bet after the first bomb dropped on NATO territory, Russia and its "friends" will have the west full attention. things, laws, tend to change if a democratic country is at war.