146
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 79 points 1 week ago

That's what Daddy Putin wants, so that's what Daddy Putin gets.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They were never going to get into NATO. Behind closed doors, Ukraine not getting into NATO has been bipartisan consensus for a long time. And Trump is not Putin’s puppet.

[-] PanArab@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 week ago

You are screaming into the void. The people downvoting you think Butcher Biden is a good person, they are a lost cause.

[-] Josey_Wales@lemm.ee 18 points 1 week ago

Source for any of this? Would be interested to know more about these points.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don’t have sources on hand for the the first point, but I do for the second.

As for the first point, it’s been covered by the likes of John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Michael Hudson, and Glenn Diesen. Some political figures have admitted as much, but unfortunately I don’t recall who off the top of my head.

[-] irish_link@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

That’s a lot of stuff about President Trump and the elections but nothing as far as I see about the bipartisan stance that Ukraine isn’t going to join NATO.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

No kidding?

I don’t have sources on hand for the the first point, but I do for the second.

As for the first point, it’s been covered by the likes of John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Michael Hudson, and Glenn Diesen. Some political figures have admitted as much, but unfortunately I don’t recall who off the top of my head.

[-] irish_link@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Yeah. You put about 3 times the effort on your first point but have a shit ton of sources for your second. Doesn’t add up.

Also Robert Mueller was prevented from looking into the money trail during the investigation that’s why he found nothing. Puppet.. maybe not but influenced absolutely. Why the heck would the US government do a 180 on our stance of helping Ukraine after President Trump was elected. “We will still maybe kinda possibly help you but you have to give us your rare minerals and be willing to lose land”

This guy doesn’t want to help Americans. Only those who have tons of money. Anything to help line his pockets and his friends.

He has shut down all information flow for health and scientific research. This means we’re sitting in the dark about potential pandemics and deadly diseases. Mpox and the strain of bird flue being the top two at the moment of many people’s list. This doesn’t even touch the measles outbreak in Texas. Measles had essentially been eradicated, but thanks for the anti-VAX push from the right We’re now dealing with something that the prior generations had worked very hard to eliminate.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago

Yeah. You put about 3 times the effort on your first point but have a shit ton of sources for your second. Doesn’t add up.

I didn’t put any effort in. I happened to have those articles on hand already.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

Behind closed doors, the consensus has been that other countries don't want to get dragged into the current war in accordance with NATO mutual defense agreements.

But since Trump insists that he can end the war, that's obviously not a consideration for him - by his claims, there will be nothing more standing in the way of Ukraine membership in NATO.

Which makes this announcement that much more significant - essentially what he's saying is that even after the main obstacle to Ukraine membership has been eliminated, the US will oppose it.

Why?

Because... no, Trump is not Putin's puppet. He's something even worse - a cringing sycophant, desperate for affirmation from his strongman idol.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago

Because… no, Trump is not Putin’s puppet. He’s something even worse - a cringing sycophant, desperate for affirmation from his strongman idol.

If you keep analyzing the current administration through the lens of Jungian analysis of Trump, you’ll keep being wrong. Great man theory is no way to go about analyzing geopolitics.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

This is what America wanted. Biden made no effort to provide Ukraine with the weapons to win.

[-] pelikan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Literally the same words said in December 2021 could possibly prevent:

  • invasion of Ukraine;
  • death of dozens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and turning of millions of Ukrainians to refugees;
  • destruction of dozens of Ukrainian cities;
  • loss of Ukrainian territory to Russia;
  • loss of Ukrainian rare minerals to US.

The Trump administration is just saying loud what all the other NATO governors have been hiding. No one ever planned to fight Russia for Ukraine and the only destiny for Ukrainian aboriginals is to be used as proxy cannon fodder to fight one of NATO's bogeymen.

NATO countries never cared about Ukraine's casualities to the point that they decided that Ukrainian lives were worth less than a signed piece of paper with the aforementioned statement: 'No NATO for Ukraine'. Everything that happens to the people of Ukraine is just collateral damage on the way to the main goal – to harm Russia. The colonizer mentality (so well known to many NATO countries) never changes.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago

I love how you get downvoted for stating the obvious.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Why stop now: they’ve been downvoting us for saying these same things for years.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

voting is the only way libs know how to engage politically after all

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago

Deadbeat dad doesn’t even begin to describe the abandonment.

[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

Hope this guy gets hit by a dump truck

[-] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 week ago

Security guarantees? Europe's picking up the tab while Washington cashes out. Hegseth's "pragmatic evaluation" means funneling Europe's GDP into Lockheed Martin's quarterly reports. NATO's 5% defense spending target? A $2.3 trillion shakedown disguised as collective security. The Continent's industrial base is now a Pentagon subcontractor.

Crimea's gone. Zelensky's bargaining chips? A lithium deposit map and a graveyard of Leopard tanks. The "non-NATO peacekeeping mission" is just a rebrand for EU cannon fodder patrols. Von der Leyen's already drafting memos about "volunteer brigades" staffed by unemployed Iberian welders.

The real "negotiated settlement": Trump's Mar-a-Lago membership roster now includes Rosneft executives. Europe gets to foot the bill for demining Donbas while Chevron drills the Black Sea.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

The fact that Europeans bet their whole future on a politically unstable country that can completely change its entire policy every four years will never stop being hilarious.

[-] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

Europe's gamble isn't just hilarious; it's tragicomic. Hitching your entire geopolitical wagon to a nation that treats foreign policy like a reality TV show is less strategy and more roulette. Every election cycle, Europe braces for the next wildcard—will it be isolationism or interventionism? Nobody knows, least of all the Americans.

Meanwhile, the EU's "unity" is a patchwork quilt of conflicting interests, stitched together with bureaucratic duct tape. Betting on stability from across the Atlantic while your own house is on fire? That’s not foresight; it’s delusion.

The real punchline? Europe bankrolls this circus while Washington reaps the dividends. At this rate, they might as well start paying for campaign ads in Iowa.

[-] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Wouldn't this have had value as a bargaining chip in peace talks? The fact that they're saying this now suggests that they're about to pressure Ukraine into a truly shitty deal.

[-] tiredturtle@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago

Under this deal, Putin gets to annex key territories while Ukraine is kept out of NATO and left without American peacekeepers, forcing Europe to buy U.S. military gear. Imperialist powers divide and weaken working people by keeping nations in chaos and under constant threat. This brief period of "peace" isn't for long as capitalist interests allow Russia to regroup and rearm. Ukraine remains in a disordered, free-for-all state under imperialist influences. In time, this setup could let Russia launch an invasion through Odessa to connect with Transnistria.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] peaceful_world_view@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Putin's investments are now paying dividends.

[-] chickentendrils@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Everyone making decisions in either country for decades has been gunning for a war in Europe or actively profiting off of this one. The war will continue as long as it can by throwing money at it unless there's simply more to be made buying up the aftermath and installing collaborators to impose World Bank/IMF austerity for generations, or the bottom is rising up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tm12@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago

Russia will eye Europe, and USA will keep eyeing Canada and Greenland.

[-] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Only a matter of time before they fabricate a reason for the public to believe and then they will invade.

And they will believe it. He’s already saying “matter of national security”. Americans have truly abandoned us. Half of them are still just waiting for the eggs while they prepare to invade other countries to play three player RISK before they die and leave the remainder for the climate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

a tale as old as time itself

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 week ago

With no guarantees of safety from future aggression, why on earth would Ukraine accept such a deal? This whole war started with Russia breaking their previous peace agreement.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Because Ukraine doesn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the entire point of the war was to get to a point where that could be certified. If Ukraine refuses any peace deals, Russia will just continue the war.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

If Ukraine doesn't get any security assurances, then they're effectively still at war. This war started after supposedly getting promises of security for ceding Crimea.

They're not the ones pushing this negotiation. If they just wanted to stop the war and give Putin everything he wanted with no guarantees he won't just regroup and invade again they could have done that at any time.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

There's also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.

It isn't a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 week ago

Ohhh, gotcha. I thought this was a real conversation, not just blindly repeating ridiculous Russian talking points about NATO aggression.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

Just because Russia says something doesn’t mean it’s false. Calling something a “Russian talking point,” is not an argument, it’s a thought-terminating cliché.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

What part of NATO encirclement is "ridiculous?" Even if I agreed with you that it is "ridiculous," clearly Russia thinks it isn't, which means the motives are still there for Russia to continue pursuing its goals until Ukraine gives in.

This feels more like you dodging having to grapple with that reality than anything else.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has borders with NATO and didn't go to war to prevent them. The war pushed Finland to join, which is not exactly a surprising result from renewed Russian invasions of conquest.

The whole reason I subscribe to ml politics is because commenters here are less blindly credulous about the disconnect between the statements of American political actors and their actions, but then you just trade it for an infinite well of trust for foreign regimes that at least until recently were blatantly worse.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

have you heard of this little thing called geography? Like mountains and stuff? Have you ever actually looked at a map of the region?

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

NATO expansion:

.
NATO in general:

.
Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:

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

NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don't trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn't the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger's Nazi past.

Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 15 points 1 week ago

I'm surprised a Nazi like Hegseth wants to help Russia so bad.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

Get ready to see a wave of far right terrorist attacks on US/European soil when they realize what we've been ridiculed for saying from day one: they were used as cannon fodder, there was never any intention of NATO membership

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Europe is rapidly entering the finding out stages of fucking around.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

What level do you need to be to cast Bubble of Illusion?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cashsky@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This plus Danish intel means a large scale war in Europe is imminent.

Edit: my point is that Russia will escalate things in Europe as Danish intel has indicated. Donno why I'm getting downvoted.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Pretty sure Europe would require basic things like industry and energy production to fight a large scale war.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
146 points (100.0% liked)

World News

33437 readers
322 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS