817
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Summary

Former Ukrainian boxing champion Wladimir Klitschko accused podcaster Joe Rogan of “repeating Russian propaganda” after Rogan criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and suggested it could escalate into World War III.

Klitschko defended Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, highlighting the country’s fight for freedom and condemning Rogan’s remarks as aiding Putin’s agenda.

He invited Rogan to discuss their differences on the podcast “like free men.”

Rogan, who recently endorsed Donald Trump, called the war a “proxy war” and criticized Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian soil with U.S.-supplied missiles.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 93 points 1 month ago

“I listen to your latest podcast,” said Klitschko, whose brother Vitali Klitschko was also a world champion boxer and is now mayor of Kyiv.

“I’m sending you this video to let you know that I disagree. You talk about these American weapons being sent to Ukraine, which you believe will lead to the third world war. So let me tell you that you’re repeating Russian propaganda.”

. . . Rogan said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “100% wrong” but remarked of the Ukrainian president: “[Volodymyr] Zelenskyy says Putin is terrified. Fuck you, man. You fucking people are about to start world war three.”

He added: “The whole thing is a proxy war … it is fucking insane.”

Putin has long claimed US assistance for Ukraine is part of a proxy war aimed at weakening Russia.

“Putin’s Russia is in trouble, so they want to scare you and people like you,” Klitschko said in his message to Rogan. “His war was supposed to last three days. It has lasted three years thanks to the heroism and sacrifice of us Ukrainians. So you’re using the only weapon that Putin really intends to use, propaganda, and this weapon really weakens our democracies.

“Putin’s Russia wants to destroy Ukraine quietly. They want America to stay quiet. Not great, but quiet. A great America is not an America that abandons countries that defend freedom with their lives.

“In short, you see, I have quite a few points of difference. If you invite me on your podcast, we could discuss them like free men.”

Brilliant. But someone get him a fediverse account please. It's crazy this is on Xitter.

[-] nolannice@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

I can only imagine how many bots are in the replies of that one

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I hate America being world police but we are supposed to ally with democracy. That’s the whole reason we didn’t defend the government of France against the people of France.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 75 points 1 month ago

I have recently been trying to enlighten my Joe Rogan loving relative as to his (what I would consider, clear) political leanings and tendency to spew propaganda. "I'm just asking questions" is one of the most powerful propaganda tactics, since it can be used to relatively quickly normalize any topic.

As one might expect, the conversations haven't gone well. People who listen to Joe Rogan tend to think they are well informed by virtue of listening to Joe Rogan.

I think collectively we need to start referring to him only as "the former host of Fear Factor" to really drive home exactly who it is these people are idolizing.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 month ago

former host of Fear Factor

That's like the most respectable job he has had so far

[-] ArtieShaw@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago

I've said it before, but he was good in Fear Factor. I don't like Rogan, but it's like this man was born to convince aspiring actors and models to eat maggoty cheese or sort tarantulas with their mouths.

"C'mon, man. I know you want that key!!! Get in there!!! Pick up those spiders. You've only got seven and you need at least nine to beat Brock. The clock is counting!!!"

[-] Tujio@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

"Least funny member of Newsradio" might be better.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Pretty amazing that he turned Andy Dick into the second-worst person to come out of that show.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

He was great in News Radio.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

And it is arguably televised torture

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Tonight, Dana White-lite discusses foreign policy and top 3 choke-holds

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago

Like my dad taught me, give bullies everything they want all the time so they don't take stuff or hurt you.

[-] thisphuckinguy@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago

Joe Rogan can eat a dick

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago

Klitschko should invite Rogan into a boxing ring.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

If Rogan accepts him on his show, I'll actually gain a touch of respect for him.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago

In my eyes it is the opposite.

Klitschko is a heavy weight world champion, Rogan should be excited to have him.

If he ignores it, it will be a clear signal that he isn't independent as he claims to be, but also gets paid to spread Russian propaganda.

I don't see how one would reject such guest unless the goal is spreading disinformation.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Yeah, especially since Rogan is supposedly a sports fan himself.

[-] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

He is not paid by the Russian propaganda. He is honest in his beliefs.

He is a prime example of a person that is not a bad person per se, but just too dumb to understand the complexities and chaotic nature of the world. So they invent shortcuts in their brain, the same kind right wing demagogues are pushing. It is inevitable that he becomes a right wing propagandist.

[-] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

I think this is my take also. I don’t think he’s purposely malicious or has any idea of the impact he has. I think he just shows up and does his job and smiles. 😆

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

There is no world in which he doesn't know his impact. He's got a number one podcast in terms of listenership. He's an idiot but there's no way he's that far gone.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

What makes you so sure he is not involved directly with Russian propaganda?

He could be compromised which is something Russia is known for.

Just because he has hundreds of millions doesn't mean he doesn't want billions either. This is a high stakes game like never before.

[-] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago

Bless this guys heart, but after the Dibble affair it is clear there is no point debating insane positions in front of an insane audience.

[-] Clbull@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Klitschko v Rogan is a celebrity fight I'd actually like to see.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Rogan was paid off by the Trump campaign which is owned by Putin. So Rogan is now Russian asset. Cool.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

Why is "proxy war" in scare quotes?

It's just a war where at least one of the belligerents is supported by at least one third party. Is there anyone who doubts that the Ukraine war meets any part of that definition?

[-] Laser@feddit.org 9 points 1 month ago

Because Ukraine isn't a proxy and neither is Russia.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

I get that people don't want to associate Ukraine with the US's horrible track record with proxy wars but the term is still just a dry political definition and the Ukraine war fits it perfectly.

It would stop being a proxy war if the US (and everyone else) cut off funding or if they actually engaged in hostilities. As long as the US (or any nation) aids Russia or Ukraine without directly participating, it's a proxy war because that's how proxy wars are defined.

[-] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago

Would Iran, North Korea, and the other countries sending arms to Russia need to cut their support for it to stop being a proxy war? Or do they get a free pass for being the underdogs?

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Yes. They would. There are no “free passes” on a definition.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I don’t consider it a proxy war.

Ukraine isn’t a US proxy nor is Russia anyone’s proxy.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure why people keep saying this.

A proxy war has nothing to do with either side being "a proxy." It only means that one of the sides is being supported by some nations that's not part of the war. That's very obviously the case here.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

In political science, a proxy war is an armed conflict where at least one of the belligerents is directed or supported by an external third-party power. In the term proxy war, a belligerent with external support is the proxy; both belligerents in a proxy war can be considered proxies if both are receiving foreign military aid from a third party country. Acting either as a nation-state government or as a conventional force, a proxy belligerent acts in behalf of a third-party state sponsor.[1]

I imagine it’s the latter part of the above from Wikipedia and long-term use in Cold War language with that part stressed.

The “in behalf” is what I believe is missing in the current example unless then Russia is also a proxy of China and North Korea.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I see. Even with that expanded, and very subjective definition, it's still hard to see how this doesn't qualify.

The US has obvious strategic interests in the war. Various US and EU politicians and even Zelinsky himself keeps making that point. Ukraine obviously isn't just fighting for to support US interests but that's the case in every proxy war. The rich, third party nation doesn't hire mercenaries, they fund the groups who already have an interest in fighting (like defending their home).

Zelinsky would obviously like that situation to change. If the US and EU were willing to send troops it would stop being a proxy war and Zelinsky would clearly be thrilled.

If we're using this more detailed definition of "proxy war", which includes intent, I'd say that Russia is not a proxy for China. The difference is that isn't providing any donations to Russia. It's buying, selling and lending on terms that are so favorable to China that it's better described as carpetbagging. China, and to a lesser extent India and Iran, are all raking Russia over the coals. China also trades with Ukraine. It does so at a much lower rate than with Russia (565 vs 21,800 respectively in September) but at a higher rate than the US does with Ukraine (197 in September (source: https://oec.world/).

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Because proxy wars are deeply associated with the Cold War era of superpowers funding long and brutal wars. The problem is that the Ukraine war is closer to the lend lease portion of WWII, we’re putting our thumb on the scale, but it’s an economic strategy as much as a geopolitical one.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

That makes it even more like a proxy war.

The cold war era proxy wars were all about saving Democracy and the "free world". We funded one war after an other under the "domino theory." Those are the same arguments we hear today except we've replaced USSR with Russia and Communist with Authoritarian. The message is the same; we don't want to get involved directly but we'll support this country as a bastion against world domination.

Some of the aid to Ukraine is structured as loans with expedited provisions to forgive the loans and some of it is outright grants. The US made a lot of money off of the lend lease program to the UK. I haven't ready any analysis that suggests that the US expects to make any money off of Ukraine.

This is much more like our support of Afghanistan than our support of the UK.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That’s fair, the biggest thing though that I think makes it not one is that we promised this aid before the war. Ukraine denuclearized in exchange for protection, they also allied with us out of fear that they’d be invaded. Now they’re being invaded by a nuclear power and we can either write the checks we promised or we can lose the entirety of our international perception of dependability in a way that basically guarantees mass nuclear proliferation (if we pull out Belarus for example would be idiotic to not develop nuclear deterrence).

And I’ll admit, I’ve had an issue with Russia since they annexed crimea and I have a long standing soft spot for Ukrainians resisting Russia. But letting Russia take Ukraine for fear of war feels Chamberlainian.

And it’s fair, I know we started by selling Ukraine weapons that were too outdated for us to use ourselves. So I generally just assumed we’re making net profit off of it.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

CFR has a discussion on the aid to Ukraine https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine The accounting can be a bit confusing but it's certainly costing the US money.

That seems to be the crux of the matter. People are objecting to the implications of a proxy war rather than the actual meaning. Past treaties, and Russian aggression have nothing to do with whether or not it's a proxy war. The intent to strategically prevent future Russian aggression, without direct involvement, is exactly what makes it a proxy war.

There also seems to be some implication that "proxy war" means that the entire purpose of the war is to satisfy the greed of some shadowy cabal. It literally just means that there's someone who's helping pay without being directly involved.

[-] urno@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I’m interested to see how JR responds. I heard the “Kamala was a chicken” line pre-election because she avoided him, for whatever reason. Now the tables have been turned! It’s a win-win for me because either I can sing out “Rogan is a chicken” or he actually has a discussion with Klitschko and many will have their positions challenged.

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

I would ppv to see this guy smash rogan's face.

With facts and logic. And his fists.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I thought they meant Vitali, but I didn't know his brother was a boxer too.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, saying the truth about Ukraine is the fastest way to get someone to call you a Russian bot. Even suggesting Zelenskyy should hold elections or allow opposition parties/media will piss off nafo stans.

[-] el_abuelo@programming.dev 20 points 1 month ago
[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

There it is. If “hold elections” sets you off, you’re backing a dictator.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

And what do you think about Russia's fake elections? What do you think about what happened to Navalny?

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I think they’re a fascist oligarchy.

I’m gonna blow your mind here: you don’t have to support Russia to oppose the Nazi puppet government in Ukraine.

[-] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hier kommt die Sonne.

Edit: No Rammstein fans here? I feel so alone now.

this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
817 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39455 readers
1537 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS