this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
96 points (95.3% liked)

World News

33148 readers
834 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 48 minutes 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Putin's investments are now paying dividends.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, Russia is winning. What are people here expecting?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Liberals still seem to think the war can be ended if the US asks Russia politely to retreat and gain nothing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago

I mean fuck hegseth he's a fucking Nazi but NATO is also full of Nazis too so fuck it let them fight

[–] [email protected] 50 points 12 hours ago (25 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago

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

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago

My guess is that this was Putin's requirement to even discuss terms. Besides, Trump already secured rights to their REM, what more could we even get from Ukraine joining NATO?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 12 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

We get:

  • Nothing

You get:

  • Less than nothing

What a fucking great deal!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

What a fucking great deal!

Somehow it's always like that when some country get to serve as US proxy.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 12 hours ago

Hope this guy gets hit by a dump truck

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

They're only divided by a small strait, why can't we just stop all of the comical geopolitical attention grabs and just watch the US and Russia kiss?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has boarders 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 57 minutes 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. 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
view more: next ›