The one thing he can’t obvious lie about directly.
Hes avoiding turning off potential voters just like a typical politician
Putin can’t vote.
He votes in the same way businesses vote. Bankrolling politicians.
I thought Americans (at least the ones who watch MSNBC) all agreed he voted in the 2016 election
All those Republican Senators love MSNBC.
He does, he votes early and often.
I found it interesting that Trump claims if he wins the election, he’ll have the Russia / Ukraine conflict resolved BEFORE he even takes office. I’m paraphrasing there, but that’s how I interpreted what he stated.
If that’s the case, then it seems like he could choose to end the conflict at any time. Why doesn’t he just end it now? Save countless lives. Minimize injuries. Prevent suffering. Save money. I’m sure that’d change some voters’ minds if he did it. Might even win him the election.
Yes, this is a rhetorical question. I have no doubt that he can’t actually end it without basically giving in entirely to Russia.
I found it interesting that Trump claims if he wins the election, he’ll have the Russia / Ukraine conflict resolved BEFORE he even takes office.
He’s invoking the Iran Hostage Crisis, I think. Reagan famously cut a deal with the Ayatollah to release the American hostages on the day of his inauguration, despite Carter having nailed down a prisoner exchange months earlier.
If that’s the case, then it seems like he could choose to end the conflict at any time.
He’s full of shit. This isn’t a hostage negotiation where Biden did 95% of the work for him already. This is an intractable siege spanning a third of the country’s land area which has been spiraling into long range bombings of the respective civilian capitals. Trump isn’t going to be able to leverage a ceasefire that’s already on the table, because Zelensky isn’t asking for a ceasefire, he’s asking for permission to use higher capacity long range missiles to force Russian troops off the southern front.
I have no doubt that he can’t actually end it without basically giving in entirely to Russia.
The siren song Trump sings is that he could have prevented the '22 invasion by playing nice with Putin before tanks crossed the border. And 100%, if there had been a detente prior to the outbreak of open conflict, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Even at a concession of territory, this arguably would have been preferable to the holocaust committed across the territory to date.
But the reality is that he was just as happy to sell advanced weapons systems to Ukraine in 2018 as Biden has been in extending military aid today. If anything, Trump was more responsible for the Ukraine/Russia war going hot than Biden. And not even for particularly noble reasons (MIC $$$!!!)
Trump falsely promised Ukrainian leadership his full support in the event of a Russian retaliation, sold them a bunch of tacti-cool military surplus, and then turned around and tried to cut the same fucking deal with the Russians.
In this sense, it also invokes Reagan who was famous for sending Rumsfeld to cut arms deals with both Iran and Iraq shortly before the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War.
Promising both countries your support, goading them into conflict, and then pulling back to let them duke it out is textbook John Bolton foreign policy. And guess who was whispering in Trump’s ear all through that first term in office?
It’s not a mystery how he plans to do it. He’ll demand Zelenskyy cede taken territory to Russia. If Zelenskyy doesn’t accept those terms, then the funding to Ukraine will stop.
It is a confusing statement. I understood it to be basically that once he is guaranteed to be president, Putin will know his man on the inside will be in charge, and Putin can end the war/negotiate for favorable terms with the US as enforcer.
Trump can’t end it before the election, because there’s no guarantee he’ll win.
Trump thinks that makes him a brilliant negotiator, instead of what he really is which is a stooge that can be played like a fiddle.
Harris said it in the debate.
Everyone knows he can be bought with favours.
He doesn’t mean he could end it at any time. He says “if I’m elected” cause he’s talking about the time period after he won the election but before he actually took office.
The moment you win the election and become the person who will DEFINITELY be the president in a couple of months, your bargaining power with other nations (and anyone really) goes through the roof compared to what you had as a mere candidate.
I’ve stated that last as a fact though it’s just what seems self-evidently true to me.
You should have learned by now that everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is pure bullshit.
His boss sure as shit doesn’t want Ukraine to win.
His boss wants to stay in power, Ukraine is just convenient way of doing it.
Ukraine was a massive fuck up for Putin. He believes in the bullshit known as color revolution.
So he thought he’d pull one in Ukraine. A few years of some soldiers fucking around in the East, then he’d walk in and be welcomed.
Which is fucking stupid.
But Putin has long since killed anyone who would tell him that an idea is stupid, or that people don’t work the way a paranoid, backstabbing KGB trained psychopath thinks they do.
No, Putin fucked up hard due to the dictator trap.
Now he’s scrambling. He’s been killing off rivals and opponents at a breakneck pace the last few years, all because his position has never been weaker.
And he barely managed to diffuse a coup attempt.
He had to use treachery to do it, so the next time, the coup leader will not back down.
No, Putin is desperate to pull out some sort of win in Ukraine, because anything else is the end of his rule, and likely his life.
And he barely managed to diffuse a coup attempt.
Context?
Priggy’s aborted thunder run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group_rebellion
Ohh, I forgot about that. Not sure if that coup would have made things better, but it was an interesting time.
Putler is betting on trump to win. If Harris wins, it’s over for him.
Well, officially, Putin supports Harris, but who knows with that deranged man.
That’s because officially Putin knows who he supports has negative connotations for the electorate.
Whoever Putin visibly puts his weight behind is the opposite of who he wants to win.
It’s also so the MAGA rubes (who mostly secretly root for Putin) can say “See Trump don’t balong ta no won cause Pootin was for the Kamunist!”
He of course supports Trump, he just likes to mess around Western politics
He endorsed her specifically so that Trump would say that in the debate. And he did.
And how do you, pray tell, know that?
Here’s a guy who believes things that come out of Putin’s mouth, over his own eyes and his own government.
Remind me, which side just got busted for being literally paid by Russia to post pro-russian propaganda about the election and Ukraine? Wasn’t that conservatives? If Putin wants Kamala, why is Russia paying American conservative influencers millions of dollars to sway voters away from her?
Lmao I don’t really give a damn. I just quoted Putins’ own words, make that what you will and the fact is he supports Harris apparently.
If you’re just going to quote people and accept it as fact, I have the metal scrapping rights for the Eiffel tower for sale and I’m willing to do so for cheap.
Better than armchair conjecture, tbh.
That’s the thing you can’t trust putins own words lmao
I know you quoted Putin’s own words, that was my whole point lol. He said those words in response to the US GOVERNMENT saying that he is paying conservative influencers to influence the US election.
So, which source do you believe, Putin, or the US government? Go on
I dont really trust, either to be honest. What has the US government said on the matter?
Because I don’t live under a rock.
But you do since you just guess. I quote known sources, and you pull shit out your ass.
You didn’t quote anything
Please explain why Putin would endorse the person who says that Ukraine should win the war over the person who won’t say that.
I don’t need to explain anything. Again, I’m just citing facts, and you’re guessing. But honestly, how much do you think your armchair analytics are really worth? Or anyone’s for that matter?
Nobody “knows” it, but it’s totally within character for both of them.
Trump is so predictable he reliably fell for Harris’ obvious bait about his rally attendees etc.
It’s not farfetched to assume Putin, who is actually quite skilled in the art of manipulating people, would attempt to use Trump as a pawn in this manner.
Yeah well see therein lies the problem. There is a difference between knowing and not knowing, something that seems to matter next to nothing to people anymore
Let’s say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn’t get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn’t matter how many die or whether there’s anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they’d asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she’s willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who’s consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the ‘good’ folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it’s not our blood to commit, it’s the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it’s their skin in the game, not our forces. It’s their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to ‘a couple of provinces’ is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that’s what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn’t claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually “pro-war”. In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being “pro-war”.
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn’t the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn’t significant “gray area” to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren’t useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually “caving” to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the “let the dictator win without resistance” strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here’s another example of “letting the dictator win without resistance.” The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30’s and the situation now, and even then it’s only one example, and one that’s vastly overused. And the reason that it’s overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. “If we don’t beat them now, they’ll keep coming forever.” All you have to do is paint the people you’re fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it’s intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So “appeasement” worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more “gray area” so it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don’t have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
Hmmm… I’m a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don’t get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it’s you’re own fatherland, which in this case I’m assuming it’s not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I’m a Roman Legionarie out fighting in Gaul, but I’m a “staunch pacifist,” you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I’m out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome’s honor. But I’m a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does “pacifism” mean to you?
Don’t you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?
This take is so stupid, it doesn’t warrant a response.
Sorry, I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you’re pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I’ve read further shows that I’m obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I’m a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don’t. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I’m sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I’m not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn’t want any punches thrown in the first place.
That’s nonsense. If “pro-war” means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I’m not “pro-war” because I don’t actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I’d say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly “pro-war”, as they went in without provocation and the justification of “WMD” was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it’s weird to characterize self-defense as “pro-war” or “being a war hawk”. One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it’s wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as “pro-war”.
For example, I haven’t thrown a punch in decades, I don’t want to throw a punch and I’ll avoid doing so if there’s a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
What does the word ‘take’ mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use…
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I’m sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You’re being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn’t warrant a response?
Then you are not a pacifist
Ofcourse not. I’m Atlanticist. Pacific should shove a dildo up its ring of fire and fuck right off.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they’d receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don’t know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that’s acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn’t been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it’s all in Russia’s favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it’s lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that’s not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup’ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90’s? Hey, wait a minute…
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that’s how it’s going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren’t happening.
Well you’ve decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don’t have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
I made a guess, if I’m wrong, explain it to me.
You didn’t make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don’t try to weasel out of it now. You’re clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
I’ve never read such dumb bullshit in my life… until I found your comments…
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it’s that easy, then I definitely don’t think people should be going out and dying over it, there’s just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
Okay, so what’s your timetable then?
It’s a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won’t listen, I guess.You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That’s a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won’t.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you’ll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Major update: politician acts like a politician.
This needs to be very widely publicized.
It won’t. Because people are hung up about the eating pets thing. Which, insane as it is might have happened.
Idk why the actual issues are swept under the rug, and the controversial takes are the focus.
It was a presidential debate. It was fairly publicized.
I dunno, I just read an article about that country’s political debate from last night and it didn’t mention this point, it was mostly discussing how angry that bloke got at the other politician and how overall it seems like it was a bad night for him and a good night for her.
The specifics were a bit overshadowed by the perceived importance of the event and it’s outcome itself, I think.
I’m sure in the coming days some more details will flow out of the USA and we’ll hear some discussion of specifics where they concern us, like their politician’s stances on the war in Europe, I agree. I’ve just not seen it mentioned just yet is all.
But it’s only 7am and I think the debate was in the middle of the night, so I shouldn’t expect much yet haha :-D
But Kamala Harris should have poited that out and reminded everyone that Trump wouldn’t answer. Then it would be her jabbing him instead of some talking head no one knows letting it pass. Missed opportunity.
I think maybe they mean… Like, not washed out by the other 90 minutes of crazy shit he was saying.
Oh no doubt. I only wish she hadn’t spent so much time explaining what a fucking idiot he was instead of taking about herself or her plans. He made all those talking points for her by, well, talking… It was a great beat down nonetheless, and I get it was her one time to really make a fool out of him in person, but again, he did that better than anyone ever could.
Great show overall, would watch season 2.
She walked him like a dog. Flatly stated he could be easily manipulated, and proceeded to do just that. He could not even muster the courage to make meaningful eye contact with her the entire debate. She just stared him down and dominated him. How brutally emasculating for him.
Watching it made me so hungry, going to doordash some fried kitten.
It will not put off his voters. Some of them just don’t care about anything international. Others admire Putin as a strongman who isn’t afraid to kill his enemies and persecute minorities, a moral conservative, a self-professed Christian, an ally against democracy and a defender of the same bigotries they share.
He doesn’t just need the MAGA faithful to win. I can’t believe I have to keep saying this.
You’re right. The hope is that they’re not enough and he fails to attract anyone else.
I don’t think he’s gaining voters and I do think he’s losing them.
He knows he can’t say Russia but he doesn’t want Ukraine to win so he does this.
I don’t know why he can’t say Russia. It’s the obvious truth, his swallowers - sorry, his followers - would lap it up no matter what, and it’s no more or less insane than anything else he says.
The are more apt to believe obvious lies than obvious truths.
It was obvious as hell that he wants Russia to win.
Yea, what a POS he is for pretty much admitting this. Not that we didn’t know this already.
All we have to do is make him president elect! We don’t even have to inaugurate him!
You’ll get all the Logan act violations you seek if you act now!
This gets me - if he’s that fucking clever then he should have ended it by now. And he says he’s good friends with Zelensky, how? Do they go out drinking together? They’ve probably spoken twice. America should be ashamed of Trump the Liar.
America should be ashamed of Trump the Liar.
Americans capable of feeling shame are. Unfortunately, his base is incapable of feeling shame, so there’s no effect there.
They’re capable of feeling shame, just not for good reasons. Like, they can feel ashamed of thinking a trans person is hot.
he will allow Russia to win yes, in exchange for favours probably
What makes you think he hasn’t already been given the favor years or decades ago and how he’s the one repaying it and he’ll get nothing in return?
Mostly the fact that Trump never pays his debts.
I have to wonder if the potential for accidentally falling out of a window goes any way into affecting the way he approaches certain debts.
Has he not done enough already for that wretched, glorified petrol station they call a country.
He is in a LOT of debt, financially and politically, to Russia. And he also is desperate to win, because if he loses he’s going to jail. He’ll do anything Putin wants him to
Of course he does, he’s a bought man.
Not only this, but they rephrased the question asking if he thought it would be in America’s best interest to win the war and he declined to answer again…
Removed by mod
Fuck is wrong with you?
Me and my popcorn wanna know what this guy’s deleted comments said
Removed by mod
Just came to agree, fuck Ukraine. All these drones have no real knowledge of that situation literally on the other side of the planet.
Real knowledge: Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
Contest that fact.
Ok? The US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of. These invasions were supported by a majority here and believed to be justified. We invaded countries on the opposite side of the world. Russia invaded their neighbors, basically their extended family, and we’re supposed to get involved and support one side or the other? The only reason it’s a big issue is because it’s pushed my certain political and powerful people. I’m willing to bet 50% of the money “sent to Ukraine” just ends up in the pockets of politicians and leeches here.
Nice whataboutism, but I have the perfect counter: I don’t support the US and it’s history of invading other countries.
Similarly, I don’t support Russia invading Ukraine. I don’t gamble so you can continue your “bets”, but I’d love to hear how supporting someone who is defending themselves is wrong.
If someone breaks into your home and you fight for your life, I support you in that endeavor.
You all need to stop claiming “whataboutism.” It is called a comparison, and if you supported it or not, it was a good comparison.
I’m not y’all, I’m me. And no that was literally whataboutism.
“[What about the fact that] US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of.”
Yeah what about it?
I don’t support those invasions and them happening doesn’t justify the Russo-Ukrainian invasion. You chose to deflect and then bet about where the money was going, for some reason.
Comparing isn’t “deflecting.” The fact that you also compared how you also didn’t support the US invasions to the Russia invasion kind of proves it was a fair and relevant comparison. YOU should consider calling some things "whataboutism"s is sometimes “deflecting”.
That’s just Whataboutism, you know it
Comparing for what reason?
Basically most of it ends in the hands of the military industrial complex.
It’s sad to see that the libs are just as post-truth as the magats are. The doublethink is honestly astounding. Not only is the US and NATO good (except for gaza) but it’s also evil to invade other countries that pose a threat to national security (unless the US does it). Everything Putin says is a lie and he’s Hitler and will always attack if we let him. Nato is completely harmless and a NATO armed Ukraine never was a danger to Russia except now when they managed to hold their own for so long and now shoot back into Russia after being so well armed by NATO. Why would the Russians not like NATO? Russians are Orcs because they are Nazis, except Nazis aren’t Nazi’s if they are Ukrainians. There was never any interference with e.g. the Euromaidan coup except we welcomed Ukraine into NATO and the EU with open arms and the CIA works excellent together with Ukraine intelligence services. Oppression is bad but Slava Ukraina and banning Russian is fine. Anyone who wants piece is a warmonger and Putin apologist. We are finally the good guys again! Stop the whataboutism of the entire history of US meddling and coups and illegal wars!
The historical facts are pretty clear how this conflict came about and why. It was a miscalculation - They didn’t think Russias economy could support so much arms manufacturing. They also thought China wouldn’t back Russia. But of course they did because they know they are next lol. There have been like 40 meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping and this war has brought them together. They are expanding BRICS and making new connection with the global south.
Of course this is still a win-win for the US empire and the oligarchs however this ends. They won’t let it escalate to nuclear war and the wealth transfers are massive. The only losers are the taxpayers and the Ukrainians and Russians.
Lets not talk about the insane level of greenhouse gases emitted because of this war.
Love it! Thank you for that. I have been corrected and concede. I mean damn, that was well-informed.
Thanks, I was rather agreeing with you. And the whole thing is murky with lots of disinformation and feints on both sides. You kinda have to thread a thin line between US empire, liberal, socialist and Russian propaganda to find anything. My main gripe is that the narrative on the lib side is so obviously false and constructed in a way that makes demanding diplomatic solutions impossible. It’s maddening!
Here is an interview with an Pascal Lottaz an “Ukrainian Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies” who was arrested and Amnesty International helped to get asylum in Finnland. His youtube channel features discussions with academics about current topics.
Fuck you
Removed by mod
What’d I miss?
Trolling
2 hours old account. Hey Russians, try harder.
I feel like when Harris said that Putin would be sitting in Kyiv, Trump didn’t understand. “Why would he be in Kyiv, Putin would be at home, happier of course” because he’s taking it literally like a fucking idiot.
And yes, Trump, of course Putin would be happier with you in charge when he invaded. The Biden administration gave crucial Intel in the months leading up to the invasion and military support. Harris 100% deserves props for being involved in that.
He’d give up on Ukraine. And call it a win.
“Winning the battle is worth losing the war”
(Trump, The Art of the Deal, pp. 179-181)
Yeah pretty much.
Aka appeasement. We tried it Donny. Though this time it’s Trump who wants to be dictator.
Trump doesn’t care so long as Russia keeps paying him.
“I could make a deal with Hitler to stop this war tomorrow!”
From the chapter: “Yeah, but remember that one time…”
That’s a short sentence for that many pages. I knew it was in big print, but…
It’s illustrated so his voters can understand the book
or maybe extort them again.
Yea, that infuriated me.
The Jews would have had peace if they’d just let themselves be taken to camps peacefully.
This is less funny because Russia literally did commit a holocaust in Ukraine.
What does “win” even mean? NATO starting World War 3? Well, they’re getting there.
Da, comrade!
Vatniks gonna vatnik.
You mean Russia starting the conflict that might turn into WW III two years ago?
The conflict started more than a decade ago. Currently it’s a proxy war mostly limited to the territory of Ukraine and Russia. Other countries are in the pipeline.
Oh we know. If Russia wins, Poland is next. Russia salami slicing started in 2014 with its first annexation of part of Ukrainian.
The next target after Russia loses against NATO will be China actually. And then Iran, North Korea. But you’ll get a total nuclear exchange well before, so it’s academical.
So likely next proxy is Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Belorus. Poland is also a possibility, but not at first. Unless Belorus, but then we’re at tactical nukes stage already.
Russia was the aggressor here. Ukraines wanted to go towards the west for a better life and protection from being further invaded by Russia. Putin is of the school of thought that Ukraine isn’t real. But it is the people of Ukraine who decide that.
This war started more than a decade ago. Russian Federation only became a party some two years ago.
This was the start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
