617
Zelenskyy straight-up said Ukraine is going to lose if Congress doesn't send more aid
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
617 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32297 readers
806 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Many such cases!
Gaddafi's is just sad. Such a terrible decision to give up their nuclear deterrence and trust western governments.
Nukes are why the DPRK hasn't been invaded again, and why it hasn't ended up Libya is now.
Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for peace with Russia, then got invaded by Russia.
Ukraine was very much at peace with Russia as it always had been before the 2014 coup and the resulting fascist gov that didn't care about such agreements.
The fascist government is the one invading Ukraine, my guy.
How many times are we going to go over this, my guy?
Most countries don't have a fascist government that violently suppresses the left. Israel and Ukraine are about the only ones (and maybe Modi's India to an extent?) right now.
It's not about a "right" to invade. The point is this was the only option left with a coup gov that doesn't care about prior peace agreements, kills people for resisting (like Eastern Ukrainians in DPR & LPR and Crimeans), and is being blocked by the US and UK from negotiating.
Lmfao username checks out with how fucking burger-brained this comment is
Lol can you even read the comments you're replying to?
This is fucking "everyone is Hamas" tier shit
Do you work for the Atlantic Council or the Council on Foreign Relations or something? 🤡
Russia has no right to carry out a genocide—any more than Ukraine had the right to carry one out on people of the Donbas for almost a decade—but then again Russia isn’t carrying out one, despite what Five Eyes governments & corporate media insist.
I will concede that there are a few fascist elements in Russia, but they aren’t in power, and one of their most well-known figures (to Westerners at least) recently died.
.
Neither Navanly nor the Azov Battalion are aberrations: the US has been maintaining fascist cells in Europe our whole lives, as a backstop against Europe ever gaining a real independence from the US, or worse, becoming socialist.
The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
Edit to add:
In particular, the US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial plundering of it, which started under Yeltson and ended under Putin.
Why are you citing Navalny (granted, fascist) and not Dugin, Rogozin and Prokhanov who are actually close to the current government?
And let's not forget about Putin's obsession with Ilyin, who, and I don't want to put words incorrectly here, is a literal fascist, like a canonical one.
I don’t know why people keep bring up Dugin:
You mean the Donbas where Ukraine was fighting Russia after they annexed Crimea?
How can you terroriza your own country that was invaded?
Are you completely ignoring the fact Russia annexed Crimea just so you can carry water for Putin? What is your agenda?
My agenda is (1) to save the lives & livelihoods of working class people and (2) anti-imperialism. My agenda is not to carry water for Ukraine’s neoliberal government, which has allowed Global North capitalists to neocolonize it to the detriment of its people.
The Donbas is not Crimea; they don’t even touch.
In 2014 the US facilitated a coup, installing a far-right comprador government, because the democratically elected government was insufficiently subservient to US interests. In response, Russia annexed Crimea, a region whose history and people were more aligned with Russia. There wasn’t much fighting involved because the people of Crimea largely welcomed this.
But getting back to the Donbas: how is bombing apartment complexes in one’s own country for nearly a decade “fighting Russia”? That was a neonazi ethnic cleansing project with the support of their own government and the CIA.
He's not Putin's right hand man, I have never claimed it
https://t.me/Agdchan/. Just read him with a translator. There are people like Pinochet and there are completely different people like Dugin
Holy cow,
Any ideas where I can find out more about Brzenzinski’s plans after the fall of the Soviet Union?
The CIA gives his book away for free: https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdf
they weren't ukrainian nukes. they were soviet nukes and ukraine didn't have the money or expertise to take care of them.
I wouldn’t put it that way exactly. Ukraine was a constituent part of the USSR, and eastern Ukraine was a major industrial hub. I don’t know the history of it, but perhaps giving the nukes to Russia was part of the deal made in the Post-Soviet transition in Ukraine.
Russia inherited the Soviet military for the most part. It's unlikely that Ukraine could have used those nukes in the first place.
Sad, but true
You mean insurgents funded by the west after having them give up their nuclear deterrence because it posed a major threat to capitalism/imperialism in the region.
Libya went from one of the poorest countries in the world to having the highest human development index in Africa by 2010 under the socialist government. Housing and healthcare were made a human right and youth literacy reached pretty much 100%.
Yes, I'll have sympathy for the country that was basically extorted by the west through brutal sanctions into disarming itself so it could be invaded and destroyed, as any human should.
He made it better for Arabs, everyone else was treated horribly. But hey I guess being a dictator is fine as long as the people you like are being treated okay and fuck everyone else. How very Modi of you.
Who was everyone else?
Libya in Gaddafi’s time was more democratic than the United States has ever been. Libya: How To Kill a Nation
When Five Eyes governments and corporate media tell you that someone’s a “dictator,” they do it to manufacture consent for regime change.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Libya: How To Kill a Nation
manufacture consent
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
[citation needed]
i am very suspicious of you and am ready to ctrl+v
Gaddafi was a leader in the liberation struggle against the Global North’s imperialism.
It was Gaddafi who was sodomized with a bayonet. Wikipedia: Killing of Muammar Gaddafi
In typical US fashion, it fabricated atrocities as a pretext for regime change: 2011 Libyan rape allegations
Three women, loads of lies and the destruction of Libya
The US does this all the time; it’s still doing it. The blueprint of regime change operations
Fight for "democracy" /s