215
submitted 1 day ago by Ziip@lemmy.zip to c/europe@feddit.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] birdwing 9 points 1 day ago

Nobody can trust Russia. Assholes downed a civil aeroplane and refuse to take responsibility. Also they occupied a lot of Europe and Russified it as much as they tried.

I think that the expenses must be paid from billionnaires' wallets, and those billionnaires must not be able to trickle the expenses down, also not being able to flee.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 23 hours ago

Nobody can trust Russia.

You are implying that somebody can trust the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also, most of the world very much does seem to be able to trust Russia just fine.

[-] Ninjasftw@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Well except for the people that share a continent with them...

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Incorrect. Most of Eurasia is fine with Russia, including most of its neighbours.

You must be thinking of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan as not trusting Russia.

Also, it is telling that you recognise that the vast majority of the countries that share planet with said invaders do not trust them. Must have something to do with the constant invasions and other atrocities.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The US is untrustworthy. Russia is also untrustworthy.

Actually, I’ll keep going (nonexhaustively and in no particular order):

Germany, the UK, Iran, China, France, Qatar, Canada, both Koreas, obviously Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Brazil, UAE, Sweden, Denmark, Morocco, and Japan are all untrustworthy.

(Please note that I’m not suggesting people from these countries cannot be trusted, but the countries themselves, meaning people acting on behalf of these countries and the governments themselves)

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

What are your arguments for Iran, the PRC, the DPRK, and Belarus being untrustworthy?
What agreements did they betray and what invasions did they participate in this century?

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

Oh, I don’t trust any governments, but I thought a list of ~200 would be overkill.

For those specifically? Iran’s shitty to women and Kurds (but man do I love what they’re doing with the US); China’s shitty to its neighbors, the Congo, and Uyghurs; and the DPRK and Belarus are providing military support to Russia for its neighbor invasion.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

So, you do find those governments trustworthy, and you do understand why the rest of the world does, as well, you just have criticism of some of their policies (in some cases, it is understandable, but, in other cases, it's just old pieces of your empire's propaganda that you're leadership doesn't even bother with trying to substantiate anymore - I recommend you reevaluate what the people that previously sold you on Iraq's WMDs say about their enemies instead of blindly believing them). Not sure what you mean about the PRC doing something bad to Congo.

Also, considering that you seem to find Belarus and the DPRK's help to Russia, I have a couple of questions for you:

  1. Do you, in that case, condemn Ukraine helping NATO invade Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere?
  2. Do you concern NATO self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia (including prior to 2022)?
  3. What should a state do when the most prolific invader in the world - NATO - starts amassing troops on that state's border?
[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

I do not find them trustworthy, no. Additionally, I don’t like you putting words in my mouth, nor do I like you assuming where my information comes from or what I believed about WMDs, especially when you’re not even informed about the straight up WMF-level financial colonialism going on in the Congo (along with many other recipients of Belt and Road funding).

To answer your questions: yes, yes, and set up defensive measures.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 16 hours ago
[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

This article about mining agreements in the former Katanga province talks about the fact that 90% of the mineral wealth in the region goes to China, the extortionate debt repayment terms, and the allegations of child labor, but the latter is sourced better here.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 11 hours ago

The situation doesn't look that bad for China.

The quote doesn't talk about wealth:

He said that 90% of the region's minerals went to China.

The wealth could still be split differently. Since Congo owns 30% of the mining company I would assume that share.

The child labor articles mentions trafficking by militias. That would be the rebels then which would be less the government and China and more the West.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

No, it’s not super clear from those sources, you’re right. I was commenting with someone earlier in the thread who didn’t want mainstream media, but if that works for you, this one’s written from a grossly pro-US perspective and this one’s more neutral.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

I do not find them trustworthy, no.

Okay, what agreements did they break, and/or what countries did they invade this century, then?

I don’t like you putting words in my mouth

What words did I put in your mouth?

nor do I like you assuming where my information comes from

There are claims (and opinions) that you are making that have very few sources and those sources are the same where one would get stuff like Iraq having WMDs, so you definitely do need to engage in some reflection.

especially when you’re not even informed about the straight up WMF-level financial colonialism going on in the Congo

Considering that all of the claims about the PRC supposedly engaging in financial entrapment of other governments have been false, I have a good reason to disbelieve this claim unless I see a trustworthy source. (No, Adrian Zenz is not one, and neither is RFA.)

along with many other recipients of Belt and Road funding

Ah, so, it is just Zenz/RFA stuff, again.

To answer your questions: yes, yes, and set up defensive measures.

Defensive measures like what?

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Gee, as fun as this is, I am not enjoying it and I’m going to stop.

As a last note: I was doubtful about whether Uyghurs were mistreated when all of the sources lead back to Zenz, because I didn’t think he was a trustworthy source either. You should look into it more, because it’s no longer the case that he is the only source of information about the genocide China is currently conducting against Uyghurs.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Ok. What are the other sources?
So far, I am not aware of any, other than a meeting where they admitted to having been unable to verify their own sources.

[-] Ninjasftw@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Lol Russia invaded Afghanistan you donkey.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago

When?

If you mean that the USSR militarily intervened in your invasion of Afghanistan at the request of the government of Afghanistan (reluctantly - after several such requests), then you are just being silly.

[-] Ninjasftw@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Yeah the request of the government that was installed quite violently by the USSR...

[-] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago

they occupied a lot of Europe and Russified it as much as they tried.

That was the USSR, led by a Georgian. The Russians can be blamed for much but I think they were resettled in the USSR much like any other ethnic group.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 23 hours ago

If you want to claim that the USSR liberating Europe from the original nazis and stopping the Lebensraum and the Holocaust was "occupation", you have to also concede that those parts of Europe are currently occupied by NATO.

[-] jimmy90@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

occupied by NATO

ahhahahahahahahaaaaa

was that the NATO invasion of 1989 when the cluster fuck of the USSR finally imploded and the NATO troops invaded and installed puppet governments

i mean there really is no point talking to ml's

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago

Really not sure what you could disagree with in my comment in good faith.

Considering that those governments are now puppet governments of the US, it does seem fair to talk about occupation, given that you consider the USSR's liberation of that part of Europe from the original nazis to be 'occupation'.

Also, if you want to talk about how people 'democratically' chose to join the most prolific invader in the world (, you do have to admit that they should bear responsibility for invasions of Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places.

[-] sus@programming.dev 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

It's a real mystery how the CIA managed to brainwash all the east european warsaw pact countries into hating the USSR while all of their media was still under the control of the proletariat.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

That's a rather silly claim, considering that plenty of people's lives did get worse after the undemocratic dismantlement of the USSR (which most of these supposed USSR-haters voted against), and the rest are now beneficiaries of things like invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not really surprising that people who join gangs of robbers, murderers and torturers hate not being beneficiaries of such and will claim that they were oppressed even when their living standards were demonstrably some of the best in the world.

Also, you do understand that the USSR was one of the most significant forces behind the decolonization of Africa and Asia, and that it helped liberation movements there, right? And you do understand what that means with regards to what sort of people would hate it, don't you?

[-] sus@programming.dev 1 points 19 hours ago

Sure, the march 1991 referendum supported preserving the USSR, but by that time Poland, Hungary and the baltics had already seceded, and Ukraine had a referendum with an opposite result 9 months later.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

Considering that the living standards in (among many other places) Ukraine fell massively as a result of the fall of the USSR, and that the other states that you mentioned are invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of relevant complaints are serious.

If somebody hates the USSR but not, for example, the current Hungary and Poland, that somebody supports things like colonialism and worse.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 23 hours ago
[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

Then you are contradicting yourself.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 22 hours ago
[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

You are either claiming that the USSR's liberation of Europe both was and wasn't occupation, or you are claiming that the USSR preventing fascists from coming into power on those countries was 'occupation', while the US putting fascists into power there and also doing things like what has been done to Greece and Ukraine is somehow not such.

[-] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 22 hours ago

I didn't say anything about that because it doesn't matter for the Russians. No matter if the USSR was good or bad, that Russification is not proof that Russians want to russify their neighbors.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

Ah, I misread what you meant, in that case.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
215 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

11872 readers
674 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS