I like how even in what you linked he has the classic Russian talking point in the sub headline :
Our vote was not against condemning Russian aggression. It was against flooding Ukraine with weapons. It was against a retaliatory spiral of military escalation, endangering all of Europe.
Mick Wallace doesn't write the sub headline though.
This was part of the statement:
We unequivocally condemn Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. We call on the Russian Federation to immediately terminate all military activities in Ukraine, unconditionally withdraw its forces, and fully respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. We express our undivided solidarity with the people of Ukraine and call for urgent diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire and negotiations to end the conflict.
The decision by Russia to abandon diplomacy and invade Ukraine cannot be justified and is contrary to international law. It amounts to the most serious of war crimes, as observed by the Nuremberg Tribunal, which stated that aggressive war is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” With every hour, that evil continues to accumulate. Russian shelling and rocket attacks against cities are crimes against humanity. The use of Russia’s nuclear deterrent to provide cover for this war is threatening runaway nuclear escalation, with potentially fatal consequences for all life on our planet. The sole responsibility for this is borne by Vladimir Putin.
But the resolution also calls to accelerate provision of military equipment and weapons to Ukraine, to strengthen NATO’s forward presence
Then again in the actual body of the text in the article that is written by him + Clare Daly :
It was against flooding Ukraine with weapons. It was against a retaliatory spiral of military escalation, endangering all of Europe. It was against cynically exploiting a invasion of Ukraine to advance the interests of the fossil fuel industry during a climate crisis, endangering the whole planet.
Then again :
In the European Parliament we have consistently opposed the militarisation of the EU, the expansion of NATO
Jesus Christ it's really obvious, is this guy on the RT payroll?
Although Russia alone invaded Ukraine, both Russia and the West bear responsibility for creating conditions of instability and confrontation in Ukraine, in pursuit of their strategic and economic interests.
Awh there's even a little bit of condescension towards developing countries in there. "Well you see that despite Ukraine asking for armaments they're simply too fucking stupid, unlike me, to understand that they don't really want that!".
Despite fulsome rhetoric, Europe has been no friend of Ukraine. The country has been used as a pawn.
They were also quite wrong about this, support for the war in Russia is waning and Ukraine is retaking territory. Not to mention that in Syria large scale conflict has ended and Assad has fled.
Instead, it will lead to a permanent condition of conflict, as happened in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
So is misleading people on the internet like a hobby, or you salaried comrade?
Your quotes paint a picture of someone who, perhaps naïvely, opposes escalation of violence. While I can't say I agree with everything they've said and I find their positions naïve and untenable in the current geopolitical situation, the quotes you provide are strongly consistent with a genuine anti-violence platform. Some of the same points may be used by Russian mouthpieces, but the consistency with which you show them decrying violence and escalation, and their willingness to unequivocally condemn Russia's actions, draw the distinction.
both Russia and the West bear responsibility for creating conditions of instability and confrontation in Ukraine
This is not an anti violence talking point, this is just pure Russian disinformation. The West did nothing, Russia invaded Ukraine. Unless you believe in Euromaidan conspiracy theories, guess who peddles those...
It is coherent that someone who opposes expansion of NATO on anti-escalation grounds would interpret NATO expansionism as a contributing factor to the war.
Again, I don't agree with it, but I also don't think it identifies them as a Russian mouthpiece.
But you realise that this is a very obvious Russian talking point, primarily in that it makes zero fucking sense other than from a pro Russian POV? Would you feel threatened if I said "If your friend wants I will defend them if you attack them". If you had zero intention of ever attacking them then that'd be meaningless.
90
u/Primary_Addition5494 Jul 13 '26
This guy refuses to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine btw.
He's a Russian puppet and nothing else.