Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!
See, I can’t tell if you’re talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist “left wing” coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence similar to what is happening in the US right now
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA & Mossad ever since.
Eh, while they’re part of maintaining the status quo, we’re ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
And the CIA has always been an attack dog of the capitalists. That’s its whole mission.
Self-coup would suggest someone is in control and actually wants what’s happening. That’d be nice.
Removed by mod
Fact check me.
How should I prove that the Euromaidan wasn’t some right wing CIA coup? How do you prove a negative?
So you’re not simply claiming the events weren’t as described. You’re claiming they didn’t happen at all, and there was no transfer of power at all? Wow.
That is not at all what I claimed and I don’t understand how you could interpret what I said as meaning that.
And your evidence for the US installing this government is what exactly?
Let me say this as a westerner - if someone all of a sudden tried to put me in a Putinist puppet state, shit would burn. To the ground.
Im assuming you aren’t American, then 👀
Good Nazi is a dead nazi
Yet you support russia, interesting juxtaposition
do go on
They draw swasticas on their minds litary vehicles.
Should just buy a tesla
And russians have neonazis congrats.
Every western country has neonazis, but only Ukraine has them in top levels of government and military.
Only Ukraine? You are one of those guys who saw Elon’s “gesture” and thought “holly-molly! what an awkward-moving guy”?
Nah, Elon did a nazi salute. Fascism in US shouldn’t shocking to anybody who’s even minimally historically literate. German nazis pretty much used the US as the model after all.
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
This was always Ukraine’s fate.
The OG coup happened under the Obama admin, the far-right were forced into government under Trump pt I, Ukraine was forced to sell off state assets and take billions in loans by the Biden admin, and now the US is preparing to pick the bones clean over the next decades.
It’s nice that yall are recognizing that the US isn’t there to help the Ukrainian people now, but we’re all gonna repeat this next war.
I stopped being Charlie Brown falling for the football 23 years go, when I saw that the consent manufacturing for the second Iraq war rested on no hard evidence.
Edit to add that the bone picking has been going on for two years already. Everything must go, including seaports.
Libya was what got me, i was a chump cheering while i watched it on CNN but the more I thought about it the less sense it made then i read the shock docturine and some chomsky. Libya went from the highest score for quality of life in africa to literal slave markets. For what? So some slimy fucking americans can take their resources instead of negotiating for them?
Rome creates a desert and calls it peace.
Not even just changes in administration. The U.S. will often suddenly move on or just decide you will work better as a villain for internal politics. The US basically told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait only to then use that invasion as justification to make him a boogeyman for the next decade.
That’s not what happen.
US is fatal even for itself
US is in a state of slow implosion. Rest of the world needs to look at collaborating while excluding the US.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
I strongly encourage all nations to begin violating US intellectual property rights. Nations like India already do so with pharmaceuticals.
Eventually other nations will need to take on the mantle of tech and pharmaceutical research and development and we don’t want to live in a world where all this progress is lost.
Americans have chosen to nuke their own democracy and we need to minimize the damage done to the rest of the world as much as possible.
Our implosion isn’t so slow these days.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
China will take large chunks. But I think we will also see a decentralization as china won’t be able to take it all. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil and so on will probably increase their regional soft powers a lot.
This process also already started years ago, but will be catalyzed by this.
Russophobia has been the big disease, really created by US/USAID/NED/CIA. Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China. Trump is literally forcing the world to liberate itself from US. The US is still a nice market, but China is much larger to sell into, and tariff wars are not likely to bring investments into the US.
A multipolar world makes as much obvious sense as democracy. But it is pretty remarkable that US is pushing for it now.
Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China
I mean, what would Europe need from russia? We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are. Only countries seriously aligning themselves with Russia those days are either extremely weak and near russia and so have 0 choice in the matter or try to play both sides for fun and profit LARPing as Tito.
Cheap energy, labor, and resources and a slightly greater degree of independence from America.
Russia also still holds a lot of their traditional soft power in many countries, including several EU countries. They also greatly increased their softpower by helping to get far right parties into power or at least signinificant influence in several EU countries (like Orban or Germany just 2 days ago).
On the other hand Russia manouvered itself into a very weak geostrategical position lately (Ukraine and Syria). Everyone noticed that and this will likely lead to some restructuring in several regions, unlikely to be in Russias favour.
I currently find it really hard to make assumptions about Russias role in the mid-term future. That is also, why I didn’t mention Russia in my post.
I don’t see any country being able to engineer coups by supporting terrorists as effectively as the US, so I don’t see Russia or other local powers replacing the US’s influence in countries where the left presents a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.
We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are.
There’s a reason why the peace talks for Ukraine are between the US and Russia and the EU isn’t invited. Nobody takes Europe seriously anymore. The only thing resembling global power that Europeans have is their remaining colonies.
what would Europe need from russia?
Resources is big one, including infrastructure already in place for energy. Most of the world sides with Russia through this conflict. Even some US colonies have done well playing both sides. Russia is also an export market. World needs Russia to limit global warming. Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work.
yes, sure, but resources, labour and a market isn’t enough to elevate you to a global superpower. I’m not proposing EU going full Juche, just why would anyone agree to anything better for russia than being equal trade partners. All those things are great and useful, sure, but you’re able to get them elsewhere. If you want special treatment you need to bring something unique to the table. Like the US used to be able to bring.
Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work
I don’t think anybody except maybe putin is trying to do that. At this point everyone would love russia just fucking off and being normal.
The monumental level of troll farming performed by the Russian state suggests they are deserving of few allies.
Going to start threatening to bomb Texas if it doesn’t hand over its oil reserves, at this rate.
3 years before they even allowed sale of 3rd party F-16s and a nonstop barrage about how effective the 90s era surplus we sold to Ukraine was gonna magically win the war.
I got banned from NCD for sharing this sentiment saying that there was literally no outcome where the US would allow Ukraine to join NATO, regardless of the acting government.
NCD is basically a NATO fanclub, so that checks out.
The only thing worst than a strong enemy are weak allies.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
In some weird way, snuggles and comedy-roasts seem to be the perfect punishment for Trump. Not the easy way out, but humiliation, which is the only thing he is afraid of.
You and I share the same opinions. I was also permabanned from reddit. “Health” to Trump!
Isn’t that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn’t exactly in Russia’s interest.
Removed by mod
The least racist westie has logged on.
These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia
One problem with this theory is that Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine trading with Europe until the coup in 2014 happened.
They were fine with Ukraine trading with other European nations but weren’t ok with them not wanting to be under Russian control.
Remember Ukraine traded in nukes to get protection from Russian imperialism.
They weren’t under Russian control. What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there. Incredible how trolls now twist this to be backwards.
What actually happened was that the west was not ok with Ukraine being independent and instigated a coup there.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
In 2008, the combined wealth of Ukraine’s 50 richest oligarchs was equal to 85% of Ukraine’s GDP.[3] In November 2013, this number was 45% (of GDP).[
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
By independent, you mean controlled by the same oligarchic system as the Russian federation?
As opposed to the oligarchic system in the west?
While you are correct that Russia really didn’t need the minerals in Ukraine, they did want to maintain relations with the oligarchs that controlled the majority of Ukraine wealth. They especially wanted to maintain relations with the oligarchs like Akhmetov, Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash. Who were responsible for mediating Russian gas sales to Ukraine.
Russia wanting to maintain economic relations with Ukraine isn’t the conspiracy theory you seem to think it is.
Of course the US has their fingers in geopolitics around the globe, but giving them credit for the revolution in 2014 is a bit generous imo. I mean, when is the last time America did anything at this scale with any kind of competency?
The credit goes to the US and it’s pretty well documented at this point https://kitklarenberg.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-coup-how-cia-front-laid
In reality this is the reason for the revolution. It’s also the same reason why America’s billionaire president is now supporting Russia. The ultra wealthy have long craved the control Russia’s oligarchy has over the state.
In reality, the reason for the coup is that certain oligarchs in Ukraine decided to throw their lot with the US. The US will now get a return on their investment when they take over whatever resources left in Ukraine that Russia doesn’t take.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, well documented facts are RuSsIAn ProPaGandad. Brains as smooth as bowling balls around here.
No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.
This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia’s ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine’s future.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
To be clear Im talking about many of the other leftists that are celebrating Putin’s invasions/actions not just you specifically
Russia has no right to demand a buffer zone and they have had plans to retake Ukraine for years as you always had that cadre of nutjobs going back to Zhirinovsky that would comment on the need to rebuild the empire. I believe they just found the right circumstances to take advantage of the situation.
No war is about morality and the only side with anything resembling a moral claim at all are those invaded.
I don’t see what discussing the morality of the invasion will practically solve, nor the insistence on Russia not actually caring about NATO and instead wanting minerals. The reason it’s important to accurately identify the cause of war is so that we can find a way to end it with the least harm possible, as it stands right now Ukraine is getting the rug pulled from under them and will be subject to US loans and Russian victory, the worst outcome for them, period.
Im not saying Russia doesn’t care about NATO. I have stated that it does not matter what Russia’s position is as they have no right to determine what Ukraine does despite the intense entitlement throughout Russia
You said it was a cover in order to grab minerals in Ukraine. I disagree, and that fundamentally changes how we analyze how to end the war.
It’s hilarious that you accuse the US and Ukraine of wanting to get rich from mineral rights, but you won’t accuse Russia of the same thing. In reality there will be rich people in each of those countries wanting to profit from minerals.
Sure, there are likely people in Russia that want access to Ukrainian minerals, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the primary cause of the invasion to begin with.
Maybe the primary cause was Putin’s megalomania, or indeed megalomania among quite a few Russian elites.
I don’t believe in “Great Man Theory” as a useful method of analysis of historical trends. Material conditions and political economic factors play a far greater role in historical events than the individual whims of leaders.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that
You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.
Putin is the Czar. What’s on his matters most. Everything else is secondary or incidental.
Regardless of what Putin personally wants, Russia acts in the interests of its material conditions. Putin is a Nationalist, so his interests in maintaining a buffer from NATO generally align with the Russian public.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism
Leftist: “Damn, this war is killing so many people and wasting so many natural resources. Everything in the region is getting worse the longer it drags on. It needs to stop.”
Radical Centrist: “You only want to stop the war because you love Hitler.”
Leftist: “Also, Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza.”
Radical Centrist: “More antisemitism! You’re only proving my point.”
Leftist: “War is Bad.”
Radical Centrist: “Just what a Fascist would say.”
Your reply is a straw man.
Your whole reply is a straw man. Bad tankie no bread line fir you.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation’s existence.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam’s Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia’s doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of “Great Man Theory” is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it’s the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
deleted by creator
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn’t poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn’t kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn’t poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam’s Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO’s formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam’s razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they’re not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Why do you believe Putin when he says he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine? Wouldn’t your belief in Russia as only lying mean that he actually doesn’t want to sell Ukrainian minerals to the US?
Russia can and does lie. It also tells the truth. Analyzing historical trends and motivations is important for figuring out what is actually going on, rather than just assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says. That’s not Occam’s Razor, that’s analytical nihilism.
I didn’t say Russian only lies. I said Russia “has lied about pretty much everything for a long time”. That is not the same thing.
assuming the opposite of whatever Russia says
I’m not just assuming the opposite of Russia’s statements. I’m drawing a best guess conclusion based on two premises:
- Russia has a history of lying about its true intentions and actions
- Russian oligarchs and elites would absolutely be interested in mineral wealth, given their history of megalomania
I think it’s likely that mineral wealth would have been part of the Kremlin’s motivation to invade. Along with general megalomania and irredentism.
Certainly you can see how the statement that “Russia has lied about pretty much everything” can be seen as “Russia always lies,” right?
Either way, I still don’t see why NATO expansionism would not be the primary factor, given that that has been a huge part of Russian geopolitics since back when they were still Socialist. Mineral access could be a secondary factor, but that doesn’t explain minerals being absent from the peace deal proposed by Russia near the beginning of the war, which instead focused on NATO.
It seems more likely that as Ukraine and the US rejected the Russian-proposed peace deals, Russia has seen that as an additional opportunity to recoup some of the cost of the war through going for minerals as a secondary objective.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.
If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.
But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.
What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
Russia hasn’t seized those materials yet and they still believe they can so the war will continue.
Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
Quote:
When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.
Still looking for a valid source on your claim…
They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
And Im asking for you to establish that those quotes are legitimate by backing them with a source that theoretically does not have a built in bias.
Im asking for you to back your claim with a more valid source because People’s World is equivalent to Fox Cable News when it comes to built in bias
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias
Do you have a less biased source? People’s world will default to the anti-western position.
Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.
The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.
The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia’s imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia’s role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia’s agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.
lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
real democracy is when all power is concentrated in one person who rules for 20+ years at a time and criticizing him is highly correlated with falling out of a window. There is absolutely no possible nuance.
I believe this is what’s called whataboutism in liberal parlance
what is relevant is the difference exists, and is a trend that can easily be extrapolated into “blossoming democracy”, especially in the minds of the russian people.
What is relevant is that you made a non sequitur here. However, the actual difference that exists is that Putin actually won elections and has popular support in Russia. Meanwhile, western puppet in Ukraine cancelled elections for obvious reasons. Try to put a bit more work into your trolling to make it less obvious.
Your unwillingness to understand does not a non sequitur make.
No, it was because they didn’t want a bordering nation to join a hostile military alliance.
And oil
One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.
based man, I’m so sad about this… hope EU+UA will forge an even more powerful alliance!
Removed by mod
Whataboutism? This post is about the US and Ukraine, not about Russia
Then why do people feel the need to defend Russia?
Pointing out the defence of something unrelated isn’t Whataboutism
You can’t see a post about the two-sidedness of US policy without invoking the Russians.
Then it’s fine to call them out when they show up
You even have (or had if mods did anything) some loser saying the US overthrew Ukraine with a far-right coup even though everyone knows that’s not true
even though everyone knows that’s not true
Source: it is known
There are relatively few comments in the thread talking about Russia at all, and calling the Euromaidan a US coup is not Russia apologism, it’s literally discussion about US+Ukraine.
Removed by mod
Current likelihood is that there’s only a mineral deal if US pays Zelensky/Ukraine to fight more. Security guarantees don’t actually cost anything until you have to do something, and its pretty likely that any weapons would be used to provoke aggression during ceasefire instead of protecting Ukraine’s neutrality.
It’s Europe that wants war more than US, and so it’s far more likely they get the mineral deal to keep going to the last Ukrainian.
Removed by mod
If Dems didn’t think it was debt then maybe they should have sent weapons gifts instead of weapons loans.
Gringos might fall for the good cop bad cop shit but the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month and we know that Dems build the bulldozer and wail when Republicans wreck shit with it.
… the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month …
i’ve always wondered if this is because of the suffering it’s causes; you remember injuries that others have visited upon you, but you forget them easily if you’re the one causing the injury.
The axe forgets but the tree remembers
Everyone, please report racist comments like these. There’s no need to respond to them.
Just curious, how exactly is that comment racist?
Standard blue maga comment, blaming all the US’s problems on foreigners, and claiming that trump is a “russian dog”, and not a standard white supremacist / imperialist in the tradition of all US presidents.
But… How is that racist?
It might be stupid, but racist? That’s a stretch.
Referring to another nationality as animals is dehumanizing in contexts like this.
The same way that Nazi’s blaming all of Germany’s problems on “Judeo-Bolshiviks” was rascist
I did a little writeup brainstorm the other day, om which I reached the same conclusion, that “Russo/Sino-Tankieism” is to Lemmy what “Judeo-Bolshevism” was to Nazi Germany. I’m glad to see you’re reading the words out of my mind
I didn’t see the original comment nor do I need to, but ethnic nationalism, the ‘blood and soil’ kind of nationalism, seeks to forge nationality into the same framework as race. Approaching nation states from this perspective is effectively racist, inherently so.
This is compared to civic nationalism where commitment to national values matters. So one could argue that without clarification it is a stretch, but at the same time… it’s usually pretty clear which version is meant.
Someone has to pay for the weapons. Duhh
GODDAMMIT, MARY!!
