[HN Gopher] Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting
___________________________________________________________________
Zelensky leaves White House after angry meeting
Author : yakkomajuri
Score : 1595 points
Date : 2025-02-28 18:49 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is how NATO replaces the US with Ukraine. Kicking the US out
| of Five Eyes is likely next.
| chrismsimpson wrote:
| I don't see this happening. Five Eyes is the US's invite only
| security umbrella. Many in Australia would love to kick the
| Americans off our land (eg Pinegap) but as the US will "coup
| who they want" that ain't happening.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The US is trying to kick Canada [1] and the UK [2] out. If
| the US is going rouge, the rest of the free world can go
| without them.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43200375
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166670
| rbanffy wrote:
| Sadly the US still has a lot of nukes and aircraft carriers
| ready to project power over its rebelling subjects and
| partners. I don't expect the military to start refusing
| orders just because the president became a corrupt tyrant
| through legal means.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| In these regards, I think the US's unfortunately very
| hard to dislodge advantage is less the ships missiles &
| guns, and far more the "secret history of silicon valley"
| style signals intelligence gathering & processing. Very
| very specifically our massive massive government
| aggregators/analysis systems (not the focus of these
| amazing talks). https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ ht
| tps://hn.algolia.com/?query=secret%20history%20of%20silic
| o...
|
| The NSA built them released Apache Accumulo & Apache
| Nifi, to offer extremely fine grained control of massive
| massive data systems. Unknown if this is still the state
| of the art, but they're still contributing. The platform
| infrastructure to be Five Eyes feels like it must be
| absolutely vast, >50% of the job of Five Eyes. Its hard
| for me to imagine an alliance of nations taking this task
| seriously enough to build their own, to serve as the hub.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Sadly the US still has a lot of nukes and aircraft
| carriers ready to project power over its rebelling
| subjects and partners.
|
| So does the UK.
|
| Not enough to take back the old colonies and demand
| interest payments for the tea, but enough to make it a
| bad idea for anyone to try that.
|
| > I don't expect the military to start refusing orders
| just because the president became a corrupt tyrant
| through legal means.
|
| I expect almost all militaty personel to obey almost all
| orders, even when they're expressly unlawful... but not
| all: Vietnam had both the My Lai massacre and the coining
| of "fragging" due to soldiers throwing fragmentation
| grenades into the tents of their own officers.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I see US influence being drastically reduced in the coming
| years. But we need to do something about their disinformation
| networks.
|
| I see people leaving their government and media positions in
| protest but I'd like to remind them that they are much more
| effective if they remain where they are. The CIA has an
| excellent manual just for situations like these.
| neuronflux wrote:
| Regarding Pine Gap, they've allegedly done it before even
| without Elon.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the.
| ..
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Why kick out? Just start a new club (I'm sure they already
| have, probably years ago, or increased activity in one that
| already existed) and let this one wither.
| empath75 wrote:
| I actually think Europe has a lot of levers to pull in terms of
| manipulating American politics and public opinion that they
| have thus far refrained from engaging in, and I, as an
| American, think they should be much bolder about speaking
| directly to the American people.
|
| I don't think that ordinary diplomacy is going to work here.
| The US is in the middle of a totalitarian coup, and that should
| be called out by our friends and allies more forcefully.
|
| Stop trying to ingratiate yourself with Trump. He doesn't
| deserve it and you won't get anything out of it but
| humiliation.
| mwelpa wrote:
| there is still to much corruption in the Ukraine, that Europe
| will never accept.
| mamonster wrote:
| Has there ever been a meeting that went this bad in front of
| journalists?
| Alifatisk wrote:
| I don't think so
| duxup wrote:
| Nope, this is the first such "blow up" where folks at the white
| house berated a guest they invited there.
| kelseydh wrote:
| The only recent historical comparison I can think of -- and
| it's a weak one compared to today's meeting -- was when Obama
| firmly reiterated to Netanyahu his insistence on the 1967
| lines as the basis for a two state solution, and Netanyahu in
| front of the cameras forcefully rejecting that to Obama's
| face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l28xJitnP78
| rbanffy wrote:
| They used to have professionals managing such meetings.
| forum-soon-yuck wrote:
| They still do, and the fact that most of you don't see that
| this farce was scripted just proves that
| tgv wrote:
| No, this was shocking on multiple levels. What motivates the
| nominally most powerful person on the planet to behave like
| this?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Power. They're having the time of their lives.
| afavour wrote:
| He likes bullying people and it makes him feel good.
|
| People often attribute 5D chess strategies to Trump when base
| instincts are a far clearer explanation.
| racktash wrote:
| It was content for a segment of his base.
|
| On Twitter, it's common to find populist-right commentators
| say things like:
|
| 1. Supporting Ukraine against Russia is risking WW3
|
| 2. Zelensky is always asking for more, more more and is SO
| disrespectful to the generous United States. And he doesn't
| even show up in a suit when meeting the president. How
| disgraceful. etc. etc.
|
| These points were both touched upon by the Trump/Vance tag
| team and that's no coincidence.
|
| My respect for Zelensky, the only decent politician in that
| room. Ukraine is lucky to have him in a time like this.
| llm_trw wrote:
| He nearly got assassinated by the incompetence of the same
| people telling him to help Ukraine.
| cbg0 wrote:
| Secret Service is telling Trump to help Ukraine?
| GolfPopper wrote:
| My guess: dementia and psychopathy.
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| Good television, it seems.
| hightrix wrote:
| Weakness. Trump looked like the weakest negotiator I've ever
| seen in this exchange. He looks so powerless. He's taking his
| frustration out on Zelenski since Musk has completely taken
| over his role in the US.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| He's an entertainer / reality TV star / game show host.
| That's the sum of him.
|
| I'm not sure what anybody could really expect other than
| this.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It went exactly the way the president wanted it to. Remember,
| this kind of bullying appeals to authoritarian parties.
| randcraw wrote:
| Maybe, but Trump's base is actually tiny, only about 22% of
| the US voters. This will strongly alienate the other 78% of
| Americans, not to mention 100% of America's allies. And
| America's enemies now see how grossly inept he actually is at
| negotiation, revealing that only physical threats will
| register with him. NOT a good development for America.
|
| An insanely counterproductive ploy, but typical of Trump's
| 'gangsterism rules' philosophy of leadership.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| But those 22% make an awful lot of noise and are aggressive
| in getting moderate Republicans to lose their seats.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| > _This will strongly alienate the other 78% of Americans_
|
| It will strongly alienate the subsection of the other 78%
| of Americans who learn of it and care. I suspect that's
| nowhere near 100% of them, and I'd be shocked if it was
| over 30%
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _I 'd be shocked if it was over 30%_
|
| Wow! You think pretty highly of us!
| jcutrell wrote:
| Sadly it will be praised as "tough" by many.
| pupppet wrote:
| Look at the comments on FoxNews, it was America's finest
| hour.
| libertine wrote:
| Isn't Trump giving access only to just a select group of
| journalists?
| timtimmy wrote:
| It's not beyond imagination that this will happen to the
| Canadian Prime Minister next.
| fads_go wrote:
| I wonder what would happen if the Canadian Prime Minister
| then decided to file charges of treason against Musk, and
| issue an arrest warrant?
| rpmisms wrote:
| I don't think so. We just saw a closed-door meeting take place
| publicly. That's all.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| "That's all" is a major deal. There's a reason you never see
| that.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Yes, but I also think that making sausage in public has
| advantages. You have to admit that this is a very
| transparent negotiation.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Everything Trump touches ... dies.
| archagon wrote:
| Sadly, "Trump takes military action against Ukraine" _was_ on my
| Bingo card for this administration. We're getting there, aren't
| we?
| bigyabai wrote:
| Probably not. The worst thing America could do is unfreeze
| Russia's assets and give them back a few billion dollars to
| fund the war effort. Europe wouldn't permit America to join on
| the side of a Russian coalition, and America's Navy isn't
| capable of European operations without Europe's support. We
| could realistically offer limited air support and strategic
| nuclear threats, but Russia already has both of those.
| Macha wrote:
| The good news is that the Biden administration put most of
| the frozen Russia assets under European control, anticipating
| this kind of risk, but of course that doesn't mean Trump
| can't attempt to pressure Europe here.
| hkpack wrote:
| US cannot unfreeze anything, because all the frozen funds are
| in the EU.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Funding secured.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Not likely. But by withdrawing military aid they're basically
| giving Ukraine to the Russians.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Let's hope the EU countries fully support Ukraine.
|
| Too angry to type more.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| if EU was going to do that Zelenskyy the beggar wouldn't be
| begging us to save him
| shiko_1st wrote:
| And what is bad with that?
| tgv wrote:
| You create an account for this?
| doctor_phil wrote:
| Is this a serious question? From whose viewpoint are you
| asking?
| sleepyguy wrote:
| It was as if they invited him to the Whitehouse to set him up for
| a lecture and scolding. They had no intention of anything other
| than humiliating him in front of the world. It's shameful what
| our administration has done.
| tencentshill wrote:
| It makes sense from His worldview. Ukraine are the weaker ones,
| the natural losers. He doesn't help losers. There is no further
| thought or consideration. That territory was always Russia's to
| take when they were ready.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| I think it's worse: Trump et al want to install a neofeudal
| system of society whereas Ukraine is fighting for the Westen
| Democracy kind of system. It's clear that Trump wants to
| establish that as a futile endeavor
| borsecplata wrote:
| I think there's no actual plan, trump et al are just
| stupid. Looking at how DOGE is doing seems to coroborate
| this view.
| forum-soon-yuck wrote:
| There is the plan, and everyone who buys that today's
| charade in White House wasn't planned as well must really
| check their heads (which is futile at this point)
| tumsfestival wrote:
| Nah, they just care about money is all. They look at
| Ukraine and they don't see a profit to be made, so they
| demand payment or the withdrawal of aid. Greed plain and
| simple.
| jfengel wrote:
| "Weaker" is a function of not just your own strength, but
| that of your allies. Russia wants Ukraine as a way to hit at
| Europe.
|
| Ukraine and its allies are a match for Russia and its.
| Perhaps more so, since Ukraine's allies have limited its use
| of force. With the US out, Ukraine may be able to exert much
| more force.
|
| Which is to say Trump's judgment of who is weak is deeply
| compromised by his belief in single strongmen. This will not
| go well for him.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > Ukraine's allies have limited its use of force. With the
| US out, Ukraine may be able to exert much more force.
|
| I am curious about this. Why you say it?
| jfengel wrote:
| Ukraine is limited in its use of American weapons. It
| can't strike well in Russian territory. The US wanted to
| keep the conflict from escalating beyond Ukraine's
| borders.
|
| Europe has similar concerns, but if Ukraine loses
| American support, they may not be able to afford that.
| They might gamble on direct strikes on Moscow, or at
| least make it clear that they can.
|
| Which might end life as we know it. Or it might force
| Russia to the bargaining table directly with Ukraine. Who
| knows? Let's find out!
| uberman wrote:
| I wish Zelensky had asked Trump if he wanted his feet kissed
| there and now because I feel like everyone could see that is
| what Trump wants at the very least.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Trump wants to be King.
| lijf wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdygrcFcyyY Jon Stewart &
| John Oliver Welcome America to Its Trump Monarchy Era | The
| Daily Show
| nxm wrote:
| Turns out Biden lost temper will Zelensky too
| legitster wrote:
| This is a good reminder why diplomacy is usually done behind
| closed doors. "Transparency" is being used as the refuge of a
| scoundrel.
| matwood wrote:
| I think they did, but they didn't expect Zelensky to punch
| back. He's more of a fighter than either of them will ever be.
| Trump is the classic bully where all you need to do is push
| back. Then he folds.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Zelensky has nothing to lose at this point. If he takes the
| deal Trump proposed Ukraine will be paying the US and Russia
| for having been invaded in 2014 and again in 2022. And let's
| not ignore the fact it was the US was propping up the
| politicians suggesting joining NATO and not renewing the
| lease on Sevastopol in 2015.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That is the real disgrace. This was a setup from day 1. A
| win-win to degrade Russia either way at Ukraine's expense.
|
| I wish Zelensky made those points instead. "The US voted to
| open a NATO path for us, The US asked not to renew the
| base, and the US refused to negotiate with Russia when
| tanks were on our boarder. And _now_ you want to walk away?
| "
| just-ok wrote:
| Nothing to lose besides thousands more lives, of course.
| cbg0 wrote:
| No real security guarantees also means tens of thousands
| of lives lost when Russia gets back into gear and tries
| to take Ukraine a second time.
| just-ok wrote:
| Why would Russia bother going through this again?
| relaxing wrote:
| The same reason they did it the first time.
| Krasnol wrote:
| I, too, think that they did and underestimated Zelenskyy.
| Trump would love to sell his deal. Now he just embarrassed
| himself and his nation again.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Did trump fold?
| randcraw wrote:
| I think Europe will see this as a clear sign that Trump
| just attacked one of their own. I would not be surprised if
| the EU nations soon call a conclave to discuss establishing
| a new compact for self defense (and economic interest) that
| EXCLUDES the US. If this does come to pass, then yes, Trump
| and all of America will have lost.
|
| This bright shining revelation of just how ugly and stupid
| Trumpism truly is (and America, by proxy) may realign world
| powers for decades, to our great loss.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That is an entirely different claim than "trump folds" if
| anyone pushes back, which doesnt seem at all accurate to
| me. If anything, he digs in his heels.
|
| The only things that seem to sway him is the sentiment of
| his voters and the economy.
|
| Bully or not, I think the entire schoolyard theory that
| bullies fold when pushed back is bunk, cartoon logic. Did
| Russia give up and go home when Ukraine pushed back?
| svachalek wrote:
| Today he claims he never called Zelensky a dictator. You
| can call that folding, or being senile, or who knows.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| It sure is awesome having a president where whenever they
| say anything that's obviously false, it's a toss-up
| whether it's dishonesty, senility, or just plain
| ignorance.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| As sarcastic as this is and scary at the same time, when
| you're right you're right. Accountability is such a vapid
| concept in American discourse it is snipping the last
| vestiges of social contract between leaders and, well,
| those they claim to lead. Fear and loathing for what may
| come.
| matwood wrote:
| IMO, taking personal shots or in this case escorting
| Zelensky out because he pushed back is folding. That's not
| strength, it's petulant child energy who didn't get their
| way. You saw the same thing in the debates over crowd size.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| A lot of strange definitions of folding in the responses.
|
| I would consider "folding" to be backing down and giving
| in to whatever Zelensky requests.
|
| Throwing a tantrum, embarrassing oneself, or even harming
| your own interests is distinct from folding.
|
| If you tell a mugger, "what are you going to do, shoot
| me" and they do, the mugger is stupid but didn't fold.
| grungydan wrote:
| So it was just like literally everything else this
| administration is doing. Shocking.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| It 100% looks like they were planning to force a confrontation.
| Notice how all the escalation is them, they start escalating
| over basically nothing, and they keep trying to crank up the
| temperature while Zelenskyy's keeping things nice and even.
| This didn't happen the last couple times world leaders made far
| more confrontational statements in a similar setting, but also
| Vance wasn't there to provide emotional support those times
| and, well, there are some common sayings about the actual
| nature of a bully.
|
| I think Zelenskyy didn't give them the sound-bites or _vibe_
| they were looking for, but they 're claiming some kind of
| victory (WTF) on social media anyway. Meanwhile all they
| managed to do was look some combination of stupid, childish,
| and traitorous, while he came out looking _incredibly_
| restrained, and overall more-articulate than them despite the
| handicap of speaking in English rather than his native tongue.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Zelensky used to be a stand-up comedian. He has plenty of
| experience thinking on his feet in front of a tough audience
| of drunks and fools.
|
| I'm wondering what all the people in the US military and
| government who swore to protect the US from "all enemies,
| foreign and domestic" are thinking now.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I have to imagine being under non-stop threat of violent
| death for several years also gives one a rather thick skin.
| shostack wrote:
| Sounds like when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and destroyed
| Tucker Carlson who had attempted to escalate and get angry.
| And Jon was like "this is theater."
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Carlson was destroyed, but he did not attempt to escalate.
| He wanted Stewart to get back to "being funny" and got
| angry when Stewart refused.
| svachalek wrote:
| First he wanted to hold Stewart to journalistic standards
| as a comedian that Carlson was not meeting as an actual
| journalist and got utterly destroyed in response. He then
| called for an emergency commercial break, and after the
| break tried to bait Stewart for not being funny in their
| interview, despite being completely responsible for the
| topic. Got utterly destroyed again, and their show got
| cancelled.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| If the past 20 years have taught us anything, including
| Carlson's history since that segment, it's that this kind
| of "destroyed" (see also: "destroyed" on Twitter) is not
| a remotely useful kind of "destroyed", no matter how
| plain and thorough the destruction.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| i'd completely forgotten about this video, i think it's
| high time to go rewatch it... thanks for the reminder.
| BrickFingers wrote:
| I disagree that it looked like a planned confrontation and
| that all the escalation is on Trump and Vance
|
| Vance made a comment about the US' goal to be diplomatic.
|
| Zelensky speaks up and says he wants to ask Vance something.
| He then goes on to talk about how Putin annexed Crimea and
| that between 2014 - 2022 Putin was murdering Ukrainian
| citizens and ignoring cease fires. He mentioned that nobody
| did anything to stop Putin, implying that Trump didn't do
| anything during his first term in office. Then Zelensky ends
| with something along the lines of "so what do you mean
| diplomacy" to Vance.
|
| Even if Zelensky's statements were correct, that was not a
| wise course of action to attempt to call out the President
| and VP while you're in the Oval office. The meeting erupts
| from there.
|
| Regardless of how you feel about the current administration,
| it is a fact that Ukraine has been dependent on the US' aid.
| I don't know what Zelensky expected to gain from those
| statements.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| My guess is he's being pushed out as president and is
| forced to sign the deal, by internal political forces who
| are likely pro-Trump or pro-Putin.
|
| This news press is his only chance to potentially flip the
| script with his public opinion advantage. We will see how
| that goes.
| hoten wrote:
| For context, since most clips I've found online start just
| after JD's comment you're alluding to here-
|
| JD's statement about "diplomacy" which precedes Zelensky's
| comments about how Russia diplomacy plays out starts here:
| https://youtu.be/CIEZEvx1HfU?si=IdGw2g74643yEQrE&t=45
|
| I suppose its arguable that it wasn't the most diplomatic
| thing to say in the moment. But I can't fault the guy for
| pointing out the undiplomatic behavior while his country is
| being squeezed by Russia and US (wrt mineral rights). How
| frustrating it must be to hear "have you tried diplomacy?"
| in the context of an invading force.
| TFYS wrote:
| What would Ukraine gain from a deal where they give up
| their natural resources in exchange for a pinky promise
| between an invading dictator and his 'wanna-be dictator'
| friend to allow Ukraine to remain an independent country?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| There was a choice Zelenskyy could have made there, but he
| seems to know the deal so he didn't hold back asking
| morkalork wrote:
| Humiliating people does appear to be a common theme with the
| administration, one just has to look at the photo they put out
| after winning with RFK and the McDonald's takeout on airforce
| one. Also all the women jockeying for various positions getting
| plastic surgery, looking like an army of botox'd stepford
| wives. I'm no armchair psychoanalyst so I can't tell you what
| it means. Just that it's very.. apparent and intentional.
| Rapzid wrote:
| That felt really gross to watch. I don't know what else to say
| that's more high-level thinking and adds to the conversation. A
| straight up "mean girls" moment.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| it was 100% the purpose, but it looks like it worked out badly.
| They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly
| prepared for this confrontation. I mean, I just can't imagine
| anybody staying that cool in front of such provocations.
| afavour wrote:
| He's also a former stand up comedian. If you're going to
| heckle the guy you'd better be good at it if you want to come
| out looking good.
| rvnx wrote:
| He did one mistake though, when he asked "Can I speak/say
| something?" to Trump, and Trump said no. This is lesson
| learnt for the future (for myself too in terms of public
| speaking).
|
| But overall, he did rather well, considering the shit-show
| it was.
|
| I still can't believe Trump publicly tries to humiliate an
| ally like this, and at the same time calls Biden "the
| stupid President".
|
| Stupid or not, perhaps he is, but not to stay in public
| like that. It shows Trump doesn't respect the function of
| the US President and shits on the vote of the citizens.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > He did one mistake though
|
| I don't think I'd consider that a mistake. Not that it
| matters to everyone but it's one more asshole thing to
| know Trump did, which was only publicized because
| Zelenskyy respectfully asked for his turn to speak. Other
| leaders are likely to have taken note of that: Trump
| isn't even pretending that you're equals.
|
| To some common folk, it will make Zelenskyy look weak but
| also consider this exact thread in which people say his
| calm demeanor makes him look strong. I'd wager Zelenskyy
| is interested in impressing the latter folk and not
| interested in impressing the former.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| There's a short list of people Trump is afraid to let
| speak.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| It did get Trump and Vance to show their asses, that's
| for sure.
| hysan wrote:
| Yup, I'd wager that given how the meeting had gone thus
| far, he made the strategic decision to specifically do
| this. He knew that this would be spun in whatever way
| Trump wanted, so it was better to win another point with
| the group that is smart enough to look past the talking
| points that Trump is going to push onto the media.
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Well put. Idiots respect a man that yells and see it as
| power/strength, smart people recognize the person who is
| calm in face of that.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| may not have been a mistake - I think Z was trying to
| maintain the high ground and force Trump to act poorly
| (by saying no); bad optics for Trump (unless you're MAGA)
| breckenedge wrote:
| > Trump doesn't respect the function of the US President
|
| Probably why people voted for him.
|
| > shits on the vote of the citizens.
|
| yes 4 years ago. But now... can't really say we didn't
| know what we were voting for. I didn't vote for him, but
| most of my fellow Americans did, and we gotta live with
| that, and hope we learn.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > most of my fellow Americans did
|
| Not true.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Trump - 77 million votes
|
| Harris - 75 million votes
|
| Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us
| /elections/...
| umanwizard wrote:
| The OP said "most Americans", not "more Americans than
| voted for Harris".
| myroon5 wrote:
| US population: 340M
|
| - an American citizen who wasn't able to vote in multiple
| presidential elections due to nonsense like being
| unregistered without notification in a state with an
| early registration deadline
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > 49.91%
|
| "First past the post" means "first to get above 50%". He
| didn't win enough of the vote to be elected.
| gre wrote:
| That's the official counts. How many voters in Georgia
| were disenfranchised? How many provisional ballots were
| thrown out?
|
| Stuff like this https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-
| vote-suppression-won/
| atoav wrote:
| Neitber of those are even remotly a majority of the US.
| dml2135 wrote:
| And even more votes for other candidates, hence Trump did
| not win a majority of the vote.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Trump only won by plurality.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I love Zelensky and I think he's a hero, but I don't
| think he did well at all. People think he did well
| because they love him, but objectively I think he made
| quite a few mistakes besides the one you mention.
|
| The first one is getting emotional in the first place.
| His team and Ukraine's intelligence services should have
| spent weeks interrogating and trying to provoke him in
| order to desensitize him to this kind of shit. Trump,
| Vance and Musk are primarily trolls and they should be
| dealt with as such.
|
| He should not have interrupted Vance answering him
| either. That was fatal.
|
| He needed to stay calm and slow. He did better than any
| of us could ever have done, but it wasn't quite enough
| for this situation. He could have looked a lot stronger
| and I think we need everything we can possibly get in the
| situation we're all in right now.
|
| I want to highlight this comment too:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43211604
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| Given the situation, he did stay calm and slow. He did an
| excellent job trying to keep the cadence measured.
|
| But Trump jumped in angry at the implication that one day
| Putin will come for the US. That is when Trump stated his
| machine gun speech ... millions will die, world war 3.
|
| This was a shameful day for America. Period. Full stop.
| bix6 wrote:
| Maybe I will wear a suit like yours, maybe it will be
| better. Z is pure class!!
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Trump did the exact same thing with the Polish president, made
| him wait for 1 and a half hours then had a 10 minute meeting
| with him.
|
| https://www.dw.com/en/how-trumps-foreign-policy-is-impacting...
| IsTom wrote:
| Which is the exact kind of play Putin likes to perform.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The joke is on them.
|
| The one's humiliated on the global scale are the ones who are
| lying through their teeth with less than zero class.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| I don't think the US is "too big to fall", and the US seems
| to have taken that road.
| nickmp wrote:
| But will the American people see what the rest of the world
| sees, or will they continue supporting Trump and Vance?
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _But will the American people see what the rest of the
| world sees, or will they continue supporting Trump and
| Vance?_
|
| Attributed to (the half-American) Winston Churchill: "The
| American people can be counted on to do the right thing --
| after they've exhausted all other possibilities."
| e40 wrote:
| I think it was disgusting what Trump and Vance did, but I
| don't believe for a second that everyone will view it that
| way. The 40% that voted for them will view this as an ass
| whooping Trump/Vance gave Zelensky. They're all in on the
| grift, there's no reason this will turn them off.
|
| Now, if SS or Medicaid is gutted... that will be the turning
| point for this admin.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > It's shameful what our administration has done.
|
| The shameful part was ten years ago.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Only American MAGA supporters saw Zelensky being humiliated.
|
| Anybody else saw Vance and Trump humiliating themselves.
| Showing the intellectual and emotional capacity of a middle
| schooler to the world while a man whose people are suffering
| occupation and mass casualties and deals with death every day
| just looks stunned.
|
| To anybody with critical thinking skills it feels like Trump &
| Vance are talking about a TV show or video game. Completely
| disconnected from reality. Horrifying and shocking level of
| narcissistic immaturity.
| haberman wrote:
| The spat started when Vance made a point addressed to the US
| media (not Zelensky), and Zelensky interjected to confront
| Vance for his statement.
|
| Up until that point there had been 40 minutes of cordial
| discussion. I don't think it was intended that the talks would
| break down and the deal would fall through.
|
| I found this account by Richard Hanania (up until now a
| Zelensky fan) convincing:
| https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1895562922593841557
| tdb7893 wrote:
| What did Vance say addressed to the media that Zelensky
| shouldn't have responded to? I've watched the video a few
| times and I don't really get what you're talking about
|
| https://youtu.be/O_BhxA1WDQY?si=7Ovl4-RpTCdi5ewZ
| sidibe wrote:
| You wouldn't understand what he did wrong if you've not
| filled your information sphere with cultists.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Richard Hanania believes that we should repeal large portions
| of the Civil Rights Act and has previously posted _extreme_
| racial hatred on white supremacist websites.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Ukraine is in a bind, and the US has the power to do whatever it
| wants.
|
| But boy, will the nations of the world remember this -- how
| quickly the US can turn from ally to bully. A really bad day for
| US foreign policy.
|
| The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of
| NATO now.
| archagon wrote:
| Let's be real: NATO is already a farce at the moment. If
| Article 5 is triggered by a European nation, would Trump
| respond? _Of course not._
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Yeah, I was wondering at what point Putin decides to roll the
| dice and put that to the test by rolling into Estonia,
| Lithuania or Latvia. He must be feeling his chances are
| pretty good right now.
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure that would go very well for Putin just now.
| The Russians are already supplying their troops with
| donkeys as they've run low on vehicles just fighting
| Ukraine. (https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/07/putin-resorts-
| using-donkeys-f...)
|
| Even if the US did nothing, rolling into NATO lands would
| put them up against the UK, Germany, France. Poland et al
| as well as Ukraine.
|
| The worry is more that a ceasefire is called. Russia rearms
| and succeeds in taking over Ukraine and then a combined
| Ukraine and Russia attacks Europe with President Vance
| supporting Putin.
| techorange wrote:
| I don't think that we're this far gone yet, but is there
| a chance the US sides with Putin in this case? I think it
| would be risky, and I don't _think_ Trump's base would go
| for it, but it does feel like the long term goal is to
| try to sanitize the idea of a shift in the geopolitical
| order to ally America with Russia instead of with Europe.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| Seems too soon, and both Trump and Putin know that.
|
| But in a few months, when Trump's base and the Republican
| Party have turned completely pro-Putin and anti-Europe...
| borsecplata wrote:
| trump and the republicans must really be stupid to trade
| NATO for russia, while leaving an opening for china to
| side with europe. If US ditches europe, india/SK/JP and
| the rest of asia will soon reciprocate.
|
| All this so that US sides with a bankrupt cleptocracy and
| dictatorship. 1000iq move, I guess.
| alrs wrote:
| Europe is not allowed to have its own foreign policy, let
| alone "side with China." All of those US military bases
| are there for a reason.
| rectang wrote:
| ...for now. With the US acting in concert with Russia
| against Europe's interest, it's time for Europe to
| reconsider whether those bases should stay.
| alrs wrote:
| Europe has no say in the matter, short of France using
| its nukes.
| CodeBytes wrote:
| Unless Trump wants to start WW3 the US won't be able to
| do anything, and even if he did start WW3, Europe would
| be able to destroy those bases.
|
| The whole point of them was to give the US influence
| while improving US security. Given Europe can't trust
| Trump will come to their aid, they won't give the US as
| much influence over Europe.
| alrs wrote:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/whowouldwin/comments/1aywc5a/eur
| ope...
| myko wrote:
| trump's base just goes for whatever he says now - perhaps
| in 2016/2017 they wouldn't, but it is a full on cult now
| techorange wrote:
| Not if he puts boots on the ground. Having a relative die
| in a foreign war focuses people's attention real fast.
| They may blame Biden somehow but
| corey_moncure wrote:
| Gosh could there be some kind of connection between Biden
| and the conflict in Ukraine?
| tumsfestival wrote:
| Nah, they'd say it was god's will or some nonsense and
| pretend it's all right. A minority might even be
| completely fine with losses as long as their god emperor
| wins in the end and owns the libs.
| graublau wrote:
| Maybe this passes as insightful in some circles but it's
| completely untrue when you consider how much of his base
| is currently fuming about weak Epstein annoucement and
| Israel more generally.
| mcphage wrote:
| > it's completely untrue when you consider how much of
| his base is currently fuming about weak Epstein
| annoucement and Israel more generally
|
| Yeah, but they're not going to _do_ anything about it.
| simion314 wrote:
| I think in this era of misinformation Trump+Elon can
| convince their falolowers that is the greatest idea to
| help Putin, and that Putin is the second greatest leader
| in the world history after Trump... you can still see
| USAians claiming USA paid more then Europe even if the
| lie was exposed days ago
| preisschild wrote:
| Russia is in war economy now, you definitely shouldn't
| underestimate them.
|
| Especially if the US lifts their sanctions against
| Russia.
| megous wrote:
| Is that dumb? These transport animals basically make
| themselves. Self-replicating, way cheaper than robots,
| easy to replace when they break down. Don't need
| sophisticated software, etc. Just some training and
| sensory deprivation.
|
| I wish humans would not involve other species in their
| sadistic ways of killing and maiming each other, though.
| Donkeys, horses, ... all benefited from war
| mechanization. Dogs not so much so far. Dutch happily
| train dogs that are then sold to allies to be used to
| attack, threaten, maim, shit and piss on, sodomize, and
| kill defenseless people. Bizarre.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Not a realistic risk, if only because I don't think they
| can credibly man a second front of any length at this
| point.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| yeah NATO got irrelevant and Putin certainly now wishes
| he would not have attacked Ukraine. Rolling into these 3
| mini countries with his entire army from 2022 would have
| been a much easier task
| sterlind wrote:
| In 2022 the US would have actually showed up for Article
| 5.
| graublau wrote:
| Do you have any evidence of this "Lebensraum" Putin seeks?
| DrFalkyn wrote:
| Listen to their state media
| castlefreak wrote:
| RT or TASS URL would improve this argument.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It's not about Lebensraum in this case. It's restoring
| the glory of the USSR. And Putin has been clear on that.
| aparticulate wrote:
| "Glory", so not specifics around hypothetical land Putin
| aka Hitler 2.0 imagines he wants. There's no evidence for
| him saying anything besides ... what he's literally says.
| This fantasy conjecture is weakening the international
| position on Ukraine, especially with such easy access to
| Russian translation tools where we can just expose this
| secret conspiracy of yours. He literally only talks about
| Ukraine, you can look into this yourself.
|
| Or perhaps you mean "glory" in the sense of some kind of
| national pride and confidence in culture and nationality?
| I am not sure arguments against any nation seeking a
| sense of themselves are particularly compelling...
| generj wrote:
| Look at the high level of Russian immigration into
| occupied Crimea.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Just because the US changing its mind about Russia changes
| NATO's dynamic as a whole does not mean that the Baltic
| states are immediately in danger. Poland and Finland are
| both nearby NATO countries that have experienced Russia's
| thumb directly with their own military industrial base or
| are developing one that would absolutely step in if need
| be.
|
| Reminder that Finland is really close to St. Petersburg,
| the 2nd largest city in Russia with some pretty big
| cultural and military importance. Putin's done some
| fantastically stupid stuff in regard to the 2022 Ukraine
| war, namely resuming it, but he's probably not _that_ dumb.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Come one, we both know Trump would respond. With a contract
| for half the invaded nations resources.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| And nothing in return.
|
| Such a brilliant negotiator!
| ksaj wrote:
| You are right. I do hope Zelenksy noticed the sudden
| caveats he added a few days ago, too. Same thing - Trump
| wants many billions in resources, yet "can't" guarantee
| anything in return.
|
| Russia immediately responded by saying it would happily
| share those resources. Of course.
| drweevil wrote:
| What if the trigger was the US annexing a NATO nation's
| territory? He's already made noises about Canada and
| Greenland (Denmark). That would be the ultimate farce.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| No one is going to go to war for Canada lol. Would be fun
| to watch though. Would be like the US going to war for
| Mongolia.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Greenland is about the arctic. It's not some farce or
| meme. Look at an actual globe and when the ice melts that
| white stuff is going to be a navigable ocean between
| Canada Greenland and . . . Russia.
|
| We tend to think of the world on a flat world Google map
| and Russia seems so far away, but when the pole melts
| Russia will be closer to north America and they will be
| wanting that area too.
|
| No ice means it's easier to drill for natural resources.
| The US is preempting the melt and trying to get ahead in
| the race for the arctic. It's much more valuable than at
| first glance.
|
| I laughed first too. I then felt that my laughter was due
| to not understanding it. "How bizarre, LOL". Then I felt
| like I was missing something big. Now I try to use these
| "bizarre jokes" as a sign to look deeper.
|
| In a way (although this info isn't secret at all, just
| boring) we can use Trump's inability to have a filter to
| leak the advice that his advisors are giving him more
| than past statesmen would.
| megous wrote:
| Warsaw pact also invaded itslef, so... it would not be
| unprecedented...
| nazcan wrote:
| Note that it doesn't apply to NATO against NATO.
| mrtksn wrote:
| There was an opinion poll amongst British on this and
| apparently even Brits don't trust America anymore.
|
| Only %44 believe that US will come to their help if Russia
| attacks UK.
|
| Yougov: https://x.com/yougov/status/1893967204846063823?s=46
| kelseydh wrote:
| I'm curious if there is any polling data on British
| willingness to help Canada should they face invasion from
| the U.S. Canada being a commonwealth country with their
| King as their head of state.
| movingontonext wrote:
| King as head of state, as of 2022.
| xgkickt wrote:
| Since there are already Kings of both Canada and Denmark,
| if Trump wants to be a King too, let them settle it the
| old way.
| sylware wrote:
| Training data too old............
| umanwizard wrote:
| The US already invaded a commonwealth country with the
| British Queen as head of state: Grenada in 1983.
| aeim wrote:
| well, after all we've been through together, i expect the
| french might find the opportunity for us to "owe them one,
| publicly" quite irresistible...
|
| (which is significant because, "after all they went through
| the last few times", their "find out" policy is a little
| punchier than most)
|
| and i don't think that anyone really wants that course of
| events...
| gottorf wrote:
| Heck, less than half of Western Europeans would fight to
| defend their own country[0]. In the UK, only a third of
| people surveyed would do so. That's less than those who
| believe that the US would come to their aid!
|
| I don't think the blame is on America here.
|
| [0]: https://www.gallup-international.com/survey-results-
| and-news...
| mrtksn wrote:
| Irrelevant. This measures trust towards USA to send their
| people who are willing to fight implied by them joining
| the military, not willingness to fight amongst the
| general public.
| scotty79 wrote:
| What's more embarrasing is that the only time article 5 was
| activated was for US when they got attacked on 9/11
| simion314 wrote:
| Yeah, we should ask USA to pay for the help we offered them
| and for our soldiers that died in those conflicts sinee the
| USaians really are into "deals" and paying for help.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| Please provide receipts of cost your nations laid out for
| the wars and lives lost. Then we can compare them to WW1
| and WW2 and see if we owe you any money.
| simion314 wrote:
| You mean when Japan attacked USA and you were forced to
| enter the war? I do not remember USA attacking nazis
| because of morality, in you were forced by getting
| attacked. I remember USA doing business with nazis so the
| "help" was mustual you were fighting same enemy and my
| country Romania was in fact on the other side , we were
| sold to USSR in the end so you got your payment when you
| split the world with USSR
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| I never once brought morality into it nor said we were
| doing any of it for altruistic reasons. That being said
| it was still done.
|
| I also don't think our "payment" as you put it was
| sufficient to offset the ongoing costs post WW2. My take
| was these costs are now no longer worth it and we should
| let Europe stand for Europe.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| The only farce would be the US.
| duxup wrote:
| I wish the EU was more ... united.
|
| Most of the nations were woefully slow to act with Ukraine (hey
| let's send some token helmets). They've got a totalitarian
| regime invading democracies in their back yard but don't seem
| all that united about it ....
| jahnu wrote:
| Yes me too. Europe needs to get its act together and do
| _more_ but let's also not adopt Trump's descriptions of what
| has been given.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra.
| ..
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| The dark humor in me really wants Russia to be colored dark
| blue in that map.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It turns out, a nation does not really exist without a
| military. The UN and NATO did a great job obscuring this fact
| for a while, but nothing lasts forever. If you can't defend
| yourself, pleading international law and norms isn't going to
| save you.
|
| This delusional view that agreements are immutable or will
| always be upheld, is why the EU is in a position where if
| Ukraine falls, there is literally almost nothing they can do
| outside of nuclear weaponry to protect any of their members -
| other than screech about how other countries need to just be
| nice and act decent. That's absurd.
|
| The EU, in my opinion, almost deserves to fail from sheer
| imbecilic naivete.
| aeim wrote:
| and law (or justice), international or otherwise, doesn't
| really exist without money (or collateral)
|
| what a web
| quacked wrote:
| ^ people downvoting your comment are wrong; it's completely
| true. The nation-state is a martial construct; the
| difference between it and its neighbors is a line of
| demarcation upheld by an external-facing military, and its
| own legitimacy, economy, and system of laws and conflict
| resolution is enforced on the populace via an internal-
| facing "military" (police force).
|
| (Edit: when I wrote this the parent comment was light grey,
| but now it's back to black. Perhaps it's a controversial
| comment.)
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| A tale as old as man, might makes right. What good are
| rules if you don't have the power to enforce them?
| fifilura wrote:
| Europe has a military.
|
| Combined, the second military power in the world if you
| look at military budget.
|
| It is as people totally forgot about it.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_high
| e...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need
| any involvement?
|
| There's a reason even Zelensky described the EU
| militaries as weak, and believes a European army to be
| necessary.
|
| Don't confuse spending with strength either: The UK, on
| paper, spends 2.3% of GDP on the military. That sounds
| good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel
| _total_. That 's not going to defend the UK from anything
| - it can't even defend Ukraine for a year.
| fifilura wrote:
| > If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US
| need any involvement?
|
| Because Putin is all-in, willing to sacrife the lives of
| big parts of his population for this purpose. And this
| makes him a formidable enemy. Does it have to be more
| complicated than that?
|
| If that is the first question you ask when someone needs
| help, I guess you will not have that many friends.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is not a lot, but I reckon once Russia has got through
| Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Czechia, Germany, and France
| they would be pretty softened up.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Okay, best case scenario then if Ukraine falls.
|
| Slovakia military: 25,000 people.
|
| Polish military: 300,000 people.
|
| Czechia military: 30,000 people.
|
| German military: 183,000 people.
|
| French military: 270,000 people.
|
| Basically, don't piss off Poland, you'll need to defeat
| about 500,000 soldiers, though do you really need to
| march on to France if you win against Germany? Even if
| you did, that's about 1/3 the US military, and nowhere
| near as well armed, or well trained, or well
| psychologically prepared. If you're Russia, about 1
| million soldiers should do the trick; and that's not hard
| when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military
| age men to throw at the problem; and (edit) possibly an
| additional few million from North Korea for purchase.
|
| As for nuclear weapons; Russia can probably bet that
| using a nuclear weapon from inside France, or inside the
| UK, as a first strike, would be too controversial to even
| do. The government would probably be sued by human rights
| lawyers from inside itself for even trying; convinced
| that it's better to take the loss while remaining on the
| moral high ground. What's even the point, when NATO
| predicts they have less than 5% of the defenses required
| for the inevitable retaliation? https://www.ft.com/conten
| t/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca...
|
| > (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
|
| Yet.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
| neoromantique wrote:
| To be fair, Ukraine is by far the most combat ready
| military in the Europe right now.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21
| million military age men to throw at the problem"
|
| But do you really have them?
|
| Putin seems really hesitant to start a new round of
| mobilization and refills his army with volunteers. Some
| of which are voluntolds, but the regime seems to be
| afraid of the Moscow/St.Petersburg street, so to say.
|
| His grip on the Russian nation, especially after 3 years
| of endless bloody slog with almost nothing gained, does
| not seem to reach into the "give millions of recruits
| weapons and they will use them exactly as told and there
| is no risk that they could rebel" territory.
| neoromantique wrote:
| The population of Russia was widely disputed even before
| the war(With most estimates placing it at below 100M),
| and now it's basically a guessing game.
| dubbel wrote:
| "Don't piss off Poland?!" There won't be a large scale
| war against the Eastern EU started by Russia that does
| not involve Poland. The EU has stronger mutual defense
| clause than NATO article 5+6 (of course, it doesn't have
| anything close to the military might of the combined NATO
| countries). Once there is an all out war, Finland would
| mobilize its army, threatening Russia's northern flank.
| The Baltic would be closed. The black sea would be
| closed. All out war would be terrible, but the deterrence
| is still too strong in my opinion, as the price would be
| too high.
|
| The problem / question is what would the EU (or NATO) do,
| if Russia starts a small scale hybrid war against Estonia
| or Latvia. Creating a small "local" insurgency, that
| takes over a majority Russian speaking town on the
| border. If the military alliances do not react united in
| such a case they are done.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| > Even if you did, that's about 1/3 the US military, and
| nowhere near as well armed, or well trained, or well
| psychologically prepared.
|
| Nowhere near as well armed as the US. But I would argue
| perfectly well trained. But I laugh at your assertion
| that the French military is not as psychologically
| prepared for war.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > why does the US need any involvement?
|
| You are asking the wrong question (or at least, a wrong
| question). It's not "why does the US need any
| involvement", it's "Why has the US insisted on
| involvement for so long?" (e.g. during the 1980s when
| widespread sentiment in Europe was for the US to close
| its military bases, the US insisted on remaining).
|
| The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from
| military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which
| while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it
| quite the deterrent all by itself.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from
| military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which
| while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it
| quite the deterrent all by itself.
|
| It's a deterrent from invading the British Isles, which
| would require a navy that only the US has, anyways.
|
| It's not a deterrent from challenging the world order.
| The US nuclear arsenal is the only one in the West that,
| if it were deployed, would end human society on a global
| scale.
|
| Russia has designed its nuclear forces and defense
| infrastructure around a war with the United States, a
| country with a much, much larger nuclear arsenal than the
| UK or France. There's a possibility that if Russia
| decided to use its tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine
| (which it has threatened before), and the UK or France
| responded in kind with strategic nuclear weapons, that
| enough of Russian nuclear forces could survive to
| completely wipe out those two nations while also having
| weapons in reserve.
|
| _That 's_ why the US stayed.
| jamil7 wrote:
| Yeah, it's the reverse of what's often pushed in the
| media. There have even been initiatives for autonomous EU
| security projects, with the US (I think even Trump at
| some point, despite what he says now about NATO) being
| against anything that would undermine NATO.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Its "nuclear arsenal" consists of a single missile boat
| on patrol with about a dozen or so ICBMs (which could
| certainly mess with major Russian cities. But if a
| Russian fast-attack sub (of which they have quite a few)
| gets it, bye-bye "nuclear arsenal".
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| I'd recommend watching Perun or Michael Koffman's videos
| on European militaries.
|
| The TLDR is they're either set up for low intensity
| expeditionary warfare (Britain/ France) or the defence of
| their own territory (everyone else).
|
| None have the capacity to send 500k soldiers to trench
| warfare in the Donbas or even operate in non-US led
| coalitions to the same purpose.
| fifilura wrote:
| Neither did Ukraine, and here they are.
|
| But Europe is not at war. It is Ukraine that is. But they
| need help with equipment, and balancing their budget.
| This is what they are asking for, nothing else.
|
| Much fewer than 500k soldiers are needed for training
| Ukrainians.
| orangejewce wrote:
| Ukraine cannot win without manpower from either the EU or
| the US. That's the reality on the ground. No amount of
| equipment/weapons (conventional) is going to change that.
| cluckindan wrote:
| I wouldn't be so sure, Russia is already doing so bad
| they need to deploy North Korean troops, motocross bikes
| and even donkeys and camels.
| vixen99 wrote:
| And it all amounts to a bag of beans. If it's so
| impressive they can support Ukraine and render irrelevant
| any contribution that the US might make? One wonders why
| Zelensky is in the US pleading for US help?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The core problem with the EU is that the EU was never a
| nation. We saw this with Grexit 10 years ago. There was a
| common currency with no common fiscal policy. A military is
| yet another thing that the EU does not have because the EU
| is not a nation. Making the EU a nation (the way the US is)
| seems to be a project of very few people in Europe. They
| like their nations the way they are.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Hang on. The EU doesn't pretend to protect it's members
| militarily. However it's members can muster far more
| military force than Ukraine had. Modern tanks, modern
| aircraft, modern ships, modern submarines, modern
| artillery, more professional soldiers. NATO without the US
| is still a formidable force.
| vitali wrote:
| It does as part of the Lisbon Treaty, and the obligation
| is binding.
|
| More here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-
| content/glossary/mutual-d...
|
| And I would expect the call to be answered (with the
| exception of the already-compromised countries).
| overstay8930 wrote:
| Russia is basically calling the West's bluff that they
| won't use nukes to enforce their ideology and Russia won.
| Everyone wants to talk big until it comes time to actually
| enforce words.
| DennisP wrote:
| I don't think the West ever threatened a nuclear response
| to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
|
| Russia, however, repeatedly threatened a nuclear response
| to the West's military assistance to Ukraine. Those were
| the bluffs that got called.
| Someone wrote:
| > I don't think the West ever threatened a nuclear
| response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
|
| I think so, too, but I also think it's likely that,
| through silent diplomacy, there was a clear message "if
| you nuke the Ukraine, there will be a response in kind".
|
| Without the USA, it's hard to keep that message, though.
| Neither England nor France can respond in kind to a
| tactical nuclear weapon, as they don't have any.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I think it's more complicated than that, no? Ironic too,
| that when you look at the things this site's moderator
| permits to be discussed, it's a hot reaction to a
| television performance. Not one person here is like, citing
| an expert source, or discussing the history, or talking
| about forecasts based on something interesting or new. It's
| all bloviating.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _I wish the EU was more ... united._
|
| it's not Europe United, it's Europe Unionized.
| jfengel wrote:
| Europe United would be an awesome football team.
| rvnx wrote:
| I asked ChatGPT to imagine an European beer:
|
| A hybrid Pilsner-Stout combining Czech crispness with
| Irish malt depth.
|
| A Trappist IPA fusing Belgian yeast complexity with
| British hop character.
|
| A Saison-Weissbier with French and German wheat
| traditions.
| gausswho wrote:
| Love all this things but threw up in my mouth a little at
| the idea.
| rvnx wrote:
| Sorry, was ChatGPT 4.5 :/
| overstay8930 wrote:
| EU is united until it comes time to pay the bill
| smw wrote:
| The EU has donated more to Ukraine's war effort than the US,
| despite coverage suggesting otherwise.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| This is false. The EU has put up more money than the US but
| they have not _donated_ more money than the US. A large
| form of the payment from the EU has been in low interest
| loans.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
| earthnail wrote:
| Loans which have no security guarantees and will almost
| certainly be written off, unless you can make Russia pay
| for them - i.e. they will never be paid back by the
| Ukraine. It's the standard money giving structure in the
| EU. Make a loan, write it off later without repayment.
| eastbound wrote:
| I'm not sure it will help if we disclose taxpayers that
| the loan won't be paid back. The idea was to sweep it
| under the rug, not boast about the EU's lost money.
| flir wrote:
| Better than Russia salami-slicing its way into Europe.
|
| Ukranians are dying. We're donating cash and materiel.
| We're getting the better end of the deal there, and then
| some.
| dh2022 wrote:
| EU is more and more open to the idea of paying for the
| Ukraine war from the Russian frozen assets ($200 billions
| or so). The big guns (France and Germany) are still
| opposed though...
|
| [0] https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-ukraine-peace-
| talks-donal...
| jajko wrote:
| They definitely shouldn't be after this. This is _the_
| waking point, I 've read article today that we could ramp
| up some serious defense within 5 years on old continent,
| skillset and money are there. This would _massively_
| boost parts of our economies, just like US did in WWII.
| Use russian assets, use green deal money that is beyond
| useless effort at this point and most costs are covered.
|
| At the end this may be good for us, since Germany's
| stance has been pretty much retarded re defense to keep
| things polite. 4 superpowers instead of 3, albeit maybe
| Hungary and Slovakia should be kicked out to not sabotage
| it from within.
|
| It seems an era is ending. Just like it did with 9/11,
| even outside US. All due to one orange man being voted by
| >50% americans to do exactly this. Why I don't get and
| probably never will but he is a symptom of current times
| IMHO, not a cause.
| ryoshu wrote:
| ~30% of voting age Americans voted for the current
| president. ~29% voted for the other option.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > voted by >50% americans
|
| Nobody in the last election got over 50% of the vote
| tally.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Correct. Trumps final vote tally was 49.7% and somehow is
| enjoying nearly unchecked power.
| roenxi wrote:
| > ll due to one orange man being voted by >50% americans
| to do exactly this. Why I don't get and probably never
| will...
|
| Not agreeing is one thing, but it is a remarkably easy
| decision to understand - people go to WWII because _every
| single_ war since then has been a disaster for US
| interests and outcomes (I think every single, certainly
| most). The last time the US had an unambiguous win by
| fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a
| fight very late. Since then all the warmongering has made
| America poorer, they don 't achieve anything good and
| generally make the US worse off.
|
| They made a call that they don't trust the military
| industrial propaganda and they want to see some peace
| happening for once. Pretty solid decision too; if we can
| all have normalised relations with the US after Iraq then
| we can stomach Russia misbehaving in Ukraine. Escalating
| a land war in Europe is stupid and its been a mistake
| every other time the Europeans tried it; even in WWII
| where they claim to be justified. The blood-lust left
| everyone closely involved broken and it'd have been
| better if they found a more peaceful route to ending the
| violence. The fact that they failed to negotiate
| something doesn't mean it was impossible.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| the Ukraine
| akmarinov wrote:
| The US has mostly donated their obsolete weapons that
| were going to be decommissioned anyway. While expensive,
| they would've otherwise cost the US money to decommission
| instead.
| Wobbles42 wrote:
| Having stockpiles of obsolete weapons to give away is a
| byproduct of having funded our military for decades. If
| other NATO countries were doing likewise they, too, would
| have stockpiles of obsolete weapons to give away.
|
| The fact that it's just the US doing this is indicative
| of the overall military posture of the EU. It's
| reasonable to question whether they are prepared to do
| their part to defend themselves should Russia penetrate
| further west.
| cluckindan wrote:
| Stockpiles of obsolete weapons are exactly the military
| aid other countries have been giving to Ukraine. You may
| want to check your sources.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Yeah! Just from Czech Republic - our old Mi-24 are
| shooting down Shahed drones daily, some of the first tan
| shipments were czech t-72s, we sent our old Kub SAM
| bateries, Vampire MRLS, BMPs, etc.
| SahAssar wrote:
| Plenty of european countries have given both stockpiles
| and modern weapons.
|
| As an example sweden has given Strv-122, CV90, Archer and
| has offered Gripen fighter jet (but Gripen has been
| blocked by US/France). All of those are up to date
| weaponry, and besides that much from older stockpiles has
| been given.
|
| That's just one example from one small country with less
| people than one city in the US.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| Are you referring to ATACMS, Hi-Mars, M777's and M1
| Abrams, the backbone of the US military and many of its
| allies? The materiel currently used all over the world?
| That 'obsolete' heavy weaponry?[0]
|
| Or is it the thousands of Javelins that annihilated the
| Russian tank columns so that the Russians are currently
| mounting assaults in Chinese golf carts?[1]
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
|
| [1] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/43685
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Yes! ATACMS is legacy.
|
| There were only a few M1s given. MANY more M1s were used
| against the Iraqi Army!
|
| The stream of weapons has been more of a trickle of
| weapons. The Javelins have good PR with the nice Saint
| Javelin but the British-Swedish N-LAWs are _wicked_ and
| the tens of thousands of the Bofors AT4 did a lot of the
| initial grunt work.
| relaxing wrote:
| Yeah man all that stuff was built in the 80s to counter
| the Soviet threat. We have better stuff now.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| "How dare you refer to our weapons designed to fight in
| eastern europe against Russia. We need those weapons in
| the USA in case we have to.. fight... in eastern
| europe... against... russia?"
| croes wrote:
| > The European Union says EU countries have provided
| around $145bn in aid so far and that just 35% of that has
| been loans
|
| Sounds like the opposite of what you said.
|
| Are you referring to Government support for Ukraine
| chart?
|
| That shows the EU institutions made mainly loans but
| there is also money from countries of the EU.
|
| And for some loans Ukraine isn't expected to pay
| anything, with repayments coming from revenues from
| frozen Russian assets.
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| Isn't Trump now trying to make Ukraine give up natural
| resources now? That doesn't quite meet my definition of
| "donation".
| krona wrote:
| > war effort
|
| "War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has
| supplied nearly double all other countries combined.
| mopsi wrote:
| That's not true. As of 2024-12-31, the US had provided
| 64bn EUR of military aid to Ukraine, and Europe had
| provided 62bn. The US had pledged further 66bn and Europe
| 100bn. Source:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43073733
| apelapan wrote:
| I have never seen a number similar to that quoted
| anywhere before. Can you name a source?
|
| The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly
| military support from the US accounting for a bit more
| than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of
| which it is number one, of course).
|
| When comparing dollar values for military equipment with
| other types of support, we should keep in mind that they
| are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition,
| vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated
| out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many
| (perhaps all) donor countries.
|
| Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years
| and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero.
| Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-
| before date does not incur much real cost on the donor,
| but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars
| worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of
| true, as they will be used in their full capacity by
| Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who
| is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace
| them anyway.
|
| [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218
| epolanski wrote:
| Except that since "war effort" is measured in $ the devil
| is in the details.
|
| It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in
| military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it.
|
| Then you find out that everything is priced insanely
| high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European
| (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more.
|
| Then you find out that billions have been spent in
| private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies
| have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even
| though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the
| planet).
|
| Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the
| weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and
| save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people
| to feed with those contracts.
| WD-42 wrote:
| This is what people don't get. US military spending IS a
| huge part of the economy. It's jobs. It's not like all
| the money goes up in smoke. Some of it does, in the form
| of munitions, but someone has to make those too and the
| US pays for them.
| exe34 wrote:
| it's a corporate welfare programme.
| kombine wrote:
| US sent Ukraine 31 Abrams tanks so far. This is for the
| largest land war in Europe since WW2. Now, can we compare
| this to the amount of military assistance by the US to
| USSR during WW2? The US could have helped Ukraine win the
| war, but chose not to.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Out of 8800 tanks produced.
| bsingerzero wrote:
| The EU has donated about the same amount of money (46.3B)
| as the US (46.6B), however total aid the US has donated
| 114B while the EU has dontaed 49B.
|
| https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-
| ukraine/ukraine-s...
|
| https://www.ukraineoversight.gov/Funding/
| daedrdev wrote:
| The EU has probably net helped Russia with all the gas they
| have bought
| gambiting wrote:
| I would say that it's a net loss in the long term with
| all the gas they stopped buying.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| And therein is the problem.
|
| Trump's a bully, but he's a bully that exists because the
| lowest common denominator keeps getting lower.
|
| Russia wouldn't have thought it had the leverage to
| invade Ukraine if not for their control over European
| petroleum supplies, leverage the Europeans gave them of
| their own free will.
|
| _Markets do not solve everything._ Trump is the ultimate
| expression of this so far, but he is not the first.
| vitali wrote:
| The energy policy of most European countries was clearly
| mismanaged. Depending on the country, bad decisions have
| been taken either due to incompetence, bribery, political
| pressure, and psyops.
|
| Psyops doesn't just work to incite... an equally powerful
| goal is to normalise. Like normalise how a country that
| has unlimited sun and wind elected to use oil and gas
| from Russia.
|
| A different nuclear energy policy would have changed
| Europe's fate. It will do so again...
| marvin wrote:
| > The energy policy of most European countries was
| clearly mismanaged
|
| Still is. That Germany _continues_ to leave their nuclear
| fleet fallow in the face of this is absolute insanity.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm not going to dis anything the EU has done so far. I'll
| give high fives for everything.
|
| But the rollout was slow, they seemed reluctant, some
| countries didn't want to be involved at all, and they
| waited for the US for a long time...
| apelapan wrote:
| The EU member states have their own foreign policy and
| extensive veto rights within the federation. It is not so
| strange that the EU itself has been slow, if anything I
| think we have pulled together better than expected.
|
| Individual member countries range from having done a lot
| fairly quickly to active sabotage. We have member
| countries like Hungary and Slovakia, who are firmly
| aligned with the Russian side, as if 1956 and 1968 and
| the entire iron-curtaint-thing never happened.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Fico in Slovakia is a hopefully crumbling anomaly- the
| previous governement (while a bit unstable) donated a lot
| of material, including a criticalzly needed S-300 battery
| and Mig-29 jets. And even with all the Ficos rambling,
| Slovakia is making good money selling artillery (both
| SPGs and ammo) to Ukraine.
| pb7 wrote:
| Austria donated what amounts to a couple of helmets but
| no one is talking about that. Must be nice being
| surrounded by NATO countries and a wealthy world police
| state across the world you can free-ride.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Why is parity the goal? The US is on a different continent,
| and also (theoretically) defending US allies in the
| Pacific, and middle east.
|
| It's Europe's backyard. Europe should be contributing 5x
| what the US contributes. They can afford it. It's the
| richest (per-capita) continent on earth. They outproduce
| Russia 5-10x.
|
| I have been a strong supporter of US support to Ukraine and
| I think this meeting was gross and unbecoming, but
| Europeans need to wake up and understand that this is a
| problem they can, and have to, solve, not just as a
| supporting player to the US.
|
| "We did as much as the US" doesn't matter. Give enough
| support to solve the problem. You have the economy and can,
| if you make even minor commitment -- 5% of GDP would vastly
| outproduce Russia, for a small cost to living standards.
| The alternative is giving up.
| agumonkey wrote:
| This debate is probably a communication strategy to fuel
| anger in the american public while distracting /
| confusing other partners. From the time I could watch TV
| I always saw USA spend intensely on military and foreign
| policy. I'm trying to find when the reversal occured, but
| it's probably during the previous campaign, as a trick to
| blame biden.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| I have said this many times. I feel, as an American, many
| people are tired. WE have no insight into the vast sums
| of money that are being spent by the DOD and where it is
| going. I see debt climbing and I have to ask myself, do I
| want my country to spend money on other countries or
| maybe focus on cleaning up our own house first? I would
| rather America focus on putting its own house in order,
| wasted spending, corruption, cartels, China buying up
| land, and the erosion of our education system.
|
| Many of us no longer feel the juice is worth the squeeze
| in supporting Europe. We have done enough over the last
| 100 years. Yes we have benefit some from their troubles,
| which they caused, but that doesn't mean we have to
| continue to support them.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Most western countries are indebted way above the normal
| limit. I'm only a newb, but afaik, the global monetary
| system was wired this way. And US was said, being the
| currency reserve of the world, to have no problem with
| large debt. In reality, what I heard is that US inflation
| gets passed onto the world through dollar dominance. (not
| an unusual move for Trump to invert the logic to gain
| political point painting himself as the savior).
|
| You never considered it was just a story to justify
| shaking "allies" ? I don't know what the truth is, but it
| smells like it.
|
| And so far there's no announcement about investing in
| education or health, it seems quite the opposite, isn't
| it ?
|
| I sincerely don't understand how there can be any trust
| invested in Trump and his speeches. So far all he's done
| is creating meme coins and reviving the ruble.
|
| thanks for your answer nonetheless
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| It takes time to turn a big ship. Why would I be excited
| to see more spending into government agencies until I am
| sure of how they are operating and what they are spending
| money on. Once things are cleaned up then you can start
| spending money as needed to get the results you want. It
| feels everyone is near jerk like, you actions didn't
| improve everything immediately so they were wrong. The
| reality of all of this will play out over the next few
| years.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| You are in luck! You will get more Chinese Gold Citizens
| buying up collapsing stock and any savings will be plowed
| right back into tax cuts. (For those with billions of
| course, not you.)
| vitali wrote:
| One thing to note is that you are looking at this as a
| government cost, whereas it's seen as a massive mechanism
| of hard and soft power, with immense economic and
| political benefits for the US, including being able to do
| whatever it wants wherever it wants. A significant amount
| of the wealth of the US depends on that soft/hard power
| dynamic. Break one, break the whole. But I agree with
| you. The US spends too much on military and intelligence
| budgets and not enough to and for its citizens. And this
| has led to the misery of so many Americans. The land of
| the plenty has not much to give to the ones that need it
| most.
|
| And on the other hand, the immense asymmetry of (non-
| nuclear) military power between the US and the rest of
| the world should ring alarm bells across every nation
| right now. Especially so in the EU, UK and Canada.
|
| Why is this massive military budget and complex supported
| by sacrificing public services, healthcare, education,
| and social services, and through higher taxation of the
| relatively poorest? And why is it not supported through
| taxation of corporations and the richest of the super-
| rich?
|
| And for me, the most important reason for why I found
| today so upsetting:
|
| What is true dishonour if not to betray a friend in need?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Well I'd argue that there was no such thing as 'friend'
| in the mind of people hosting that event. It was clearly
| abusive mobster negotiation tactics, immoral power play
| and profit extraction.
| vitali wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| And from my perspective, Europe needs to wake up, and
| start thinking as a unit. It needs a unified, independent
| military with in-house production.
|
| A two-speed EU is paramount now.
|
| And the average EU citizen needs to wake up before we see
| history repeated, like last time.
| noduerme wrote:
| What we got, and get, out of supporting Western Europe at
| the end of WWII was that otherwise, the entire continent
| would have been run by the Soviet Union. Not just that,
| we got a valuable trading partner, and our rebuilding put
| an end to hundreds of years of European wars.
|
| Not that you might care about the moral aspect of it, but
| we also finished Nazi Germany and prevented that horror
| from taking over the world.
|
| What we got out of expanding the alliance to Eastern
| Europe was a further bulwark against Russia, which has
| always been an expansionist totalitarian empire that
| enslaves or kills anyone who disagrees with the dictator.
| It's no different now than it was under the czars.
|
| Europe is basically America's backyard now, and Russia
| wants it. Giving up your backyard because your violent
| neighbor threatens you for it, doesn't make you strong,
| it makes you weak.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| I am aware of the long history we have with Europe and
| how it came to be. Yet I am in the present and I no
| longer care what we look like to the rest of the world. I
| see problems at home and these are far more concerning to
| me then Russia taking over Europe. China is a much bigger
| enemy of America's in the Pacific. We should be focusing
| our defense spending there. Let Europe stand for Europe.
|
| No matter what happens America will be blamed and shamed,
| we didn't spend enough, we didn't xxxx enough, if only
| America had done yyyy zzzz wouldn't have happened, and on
| and on. So I am all for putting Americas interests first.
|
| Also I find your last sentence to be the antithesis of
| what I am talking about. Why does America look weak?
| Wouldn't Europe look much weaker??? It feels like
| gaslighting, like someone will call you names so you need
| to come and die for us! It gets old.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Regarding the ukraine war I don't remember any tangible
| criticism regarding the US. That would be way too
| hypocritical considering Europe aid has been too slow. At
| least nobody in my circle was asking more of the US. I
| really think you're being played. Also so far market are
| down, prices are up. Was it the best administration to
| deal with problems ?
|
| I understand the parent last sentence differently.
| Considering America's might, giving in to a mediocre
| aggressor seems weak. It's not that you have to do it,
| but it was the previous foreign policy / aura of the USA.
| Leader of the free world IIRC. Now you're free to change
| course. But it would be wise to operate smoothly.
| kergonath wrote:
| > I see debt climbing and I have to ask myself, do I want
| my country to spend money on other countries or maybe
| focus on cleaning up our own house first? I would rather
| America focus on putting its own house in order, wasted
| spending, corruption, cartels, China buying up land, and
| the erosion of our education system.
|
| Not helping Ukraine won't solve any of that, though.
| Regardless of the US policy regarding Europe, I am
| willing to bet that military spending will keep
| ballooning now that the broligarchs are in power and
| fighting to redirect public spending to their pockets.
| Ultimately, I understand your sentiment, but this course
| of action will not lead to what you hope. If anything,
| everything will get worse because the people in power
| have no interest in fixing the issues you mentioned.
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| The reason the US is the global hegemon of the western
| world was because they won the cold war against USSR.
| Being the leading member of NATO largely contributed to
| that, and ensured US dominance in geopolitics and trade.
|
| With Trump now in office, the US seems to be willingly
| breaking, or at the very least withdrawing from, the NATO
| alliance. With that they give up their position as
| hegemon, and sacrifice their influence on Europe.
|
| To me, it seems like Russia is now winning the cold war,
| 35 years after it "ended".
| jimmydoe wrote:
| If you compare to how things began in Cold War, it's far
| from a win for Russia no matter how much it may take from
| Ukraine.
|
| SU lost, here we feel some ripple or aftershock. US
| enjoyed years of prosperity, its people lived in much
| higher living standards for a long time.
|
| What's a shame for the US is the innovators dilemma that
| it was not able to improve its system after the pressure
| of competition was gone, and now inequality brought you
| Trump II.
| jan_g wrote:
| Unfortunately, EU is not an entity with single and
| unified view on things. In the case of Russian invasion
| of Ukraine, there is a surprisingly strong opposition to
| related policies in Brussels amongst the people in quite
| a few member states. In fact, many support Putin and now
| his best buddy Trump - with plain stupid belief that
| Putin/Trump wants peace and Zelensky wants to continue
| war. In short, EU (+ UK, Norway, maybe Switzerland) is
| simply not as unified against Putin as it may appear in
| the Brussels press conferences. Putting more effort (in
| money, materials, soldiers even) in this conflict will be
| hard to pill to swallow for large percentage of citizens
| and by extension politicians. What I see happening in the
| near future is more money flowing into militaries of the
| member states, which is a sad necessity by having Putin
| as neighbor. But I'm skeptical of EU countries becoming
| much more involved in the Ukraine conflict.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Forget the EU. I don't care about the EU.
|
| Britain, Germany, and France alone have the military
| production and economy to win the war. Doesn't matter if
| Hungary or Ireland or whoever back out of the consortium.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Loans are not the same as heavy weaponry and intelligence.
|
| Other American administrations have been spending decades
| _begging_ NATO allies to keep their militaries up to a
| higher standard. Their refusal to do so is now coming back
| to haunt the world order.
| newhotelowner wrote:
| Isn't it heavy weaponry is mostly the junk that US
| military didn't want to use. Mostly expired weapons.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| It's stuff that would actually cost to trash, the us is
| at least a generation ahead of that equipment.
| lukan wrote:
| "Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the
| world order."
|
| I would think, the US going against the International
| Court of Justice, threatening allies over land and making
| deals with a official emperor is doing worse.
| philipov wrote:
| I hadn't heard about anyone becoming officially an
| emperor recently. Who are you referring to?
| lukan wrote:
| Putin obviously. And no, "formally" he is surely a
| elected president. Just one who talks about and compares
| himself to the great emperors of russian past a lot and
| acts pretty much the same.
| philipov wrote:
| Okay, so when you said official, you meant unofficial.
| Got it. I'm with you completely on the rest of it.
| lukan wrote:
| No, I meant de facto official. Putin is de facto a
| emperor, just not de jure. (but not need to further do
| pedantic semantics ..)
| abeppu wrote:
| It does seem there's been plenty of actual arms, vehicles
| etc in military aid from European countries to Ukraine. h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra
| in...
|
| And the share of NATO members meeting a 2% of GDP target
| is now a majority, after recent marked increases. https:/
| /www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...
| cluckindan wrote:
| You are echoing Russian propaganda. European states are
| not expecting money back from Ukraine.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| What i do not get is the lack of understanding that
| contractsecurity goes with the western world order too.
| Investments worldwide are as safe as a owing a mc donalds
| in russia, in a multipolar autorian world. How a whole
| world is willing to risk their retirement funds and
| pensions like this, for peanuts..
| kergonath wrote:
| > Their refusal to do so is now coming back to haunt the
| world order.
|
| That is partially true, but the world order would be in
| tatters because of Trump, regardless of the military
| spending of the rest of NATO.
| 627467 wrote:
| To suggest the EU/Europe has done anything close to the
| bare minimum for Ukraine is absurd and Europeans who think
| otherwise are as delusional on this as the long term
| usefulness of the actual EU
| mcv wrote:
| They have, but they need to double it. You can't count on
| the US anymore, and Ukraine needs a lot more than it's
| getting.
|
| And let's face it, the EU can easily afford it. Sure it
| hurts a bit. But more war with Russia hurts a lot more. The
| cheapest way out is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not give
| him the opportunity to try again in a few years.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| We can afford it, but it is very difficult to do
| politically. The rise of far-right parties has everyone
| spooked, and in ageing societies pensioners cost more and
| more money, while holding most of the wealth, and
| constituting the majority of the voting power. Working
| people feel increasingly disenfrenchised, and it is only
| going to get worse. At the same time we are judging
| climate change to still be a larger problem (or we are at
| least investing a lot more money into it), and there's
| this horrific fetish for fiscal conservatism in law and
| in practice.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| How can you afford an indefinite war against a nuclear
| power? He will just drag you into a quagmire, which
| always works against the west. I'm genuinely curious what
| strategy Europe will have here to squeeze Russia.
| ioblomov wrote:
| Especially when that nuclear power is Russia. After all,
| if we had to credit a single country, Russia defeated
| both Napoleon and Hitler.
| mcv wrote:
| But they lost to Afghanistan and Finland.
| notahacker wrote:
| And a naval engagement to the Czech Foreign Legion :)
| Russia has historically been very good at killing off
| invading armies through attrition, but that's not
| necessarily a strength when they're the invading army in
| similarly inhospitable conditions
| choult wrote:
| The trick is to avoid invading them and make them come
| out to play.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Does this confer from the depth of history, current
| Russia some magical abilities in the present?
|
| This is magical thinking. Russia is near bankrupt.
| jajko wrote:
| Easy to defend mega land with harsh winters (but not so
| harsh anymore as they were during those failed
| campaigns), especially when _both_ defeated invading
| armies severely underestimated... cold weather. Nobody is
| really invading russia here, whole world just wants to be
| left alone from them, including all former soviet
| republics (funnily this includes Belarus too).
|
| That's not saying anything about their offensive
| capabilities, which as whole world sees are a fraction of
| what was thought about them. They really are supremely
| ineffective, corrupt and lazy in numbers and levels that
| cripple whole war for them. They can't produce enough new
| armed vehicles and their stockpiles from cold war are
| running very thin as per independent satellite analyses,
| they use stolen motorbikes, donkeys and golf karts for
| troopers now (with corresponding death rate). Their
| nuclear weapons are just a guarantee they won't be
| attacked on Moscow conventionally or nuclear in any way,
| nothing more. As we see all other 'doctrines' and 'red
| lines' fell apart with long lasting incursion in Kursk so
| that was just an empty bullshit.
|
| They know all this, their country is falling into
| inflation spiral which can easily end up with people's
| revolt and I believe puttin' realizes how fragile his
| relatively soft power grip on russia is. Plus he has
| positioned himself as an arbiter between various power
| clans within his hierarchy, not as a single supreme
| single ruler whom everybody fears for life like in North
| Korea for example. He _desperately_ needs to finish this
| war within a year or two since he is an extremely
| paranoid person. But he has some sort of effective reach
| or control over orange man and we saw what we saw, who
| knows why.
| kergonath wrote:
| > After all, if we had to credit a single country, Russia
| defeated both Napoleon and Hitler.
|
| So did the UK, so what's your point?
| mcv wrote:
| Nukes don't give Russia infinite resources. Russia's
| economy is suffering. They've mostly ran out of modern
| tanks (except for the T-14 which still hasn't seen combat
| somehow), they're using donkeys for trucks now, their
| artillery has lost the punch it had two years ago.
| They're mostly sending demoralized soldiers in deadly
| human wave assaults, and dropping bombs on cities. That's
| all they've got left.
|
| Russia has the economy of a medium-sized EU nation. The
| EU is vastly more powerful. If the EU wants to, they can
| give Ukraine everything they need to win. Only they're
| divided and unwilling to believe in their strength after
| 80 years of dependency on the US.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| This is hopeful news, because we need a leader right now.
| navane wrote:
| We burn cash at the front and the richest nation wins.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| It won't be indefinite, eventually the nukes will fly. On
| a long enough timescale, whether it's this war or the
| next or the one after that we humans are going to pull
| the nuclear trigger. The question is "for what reason?"
| This seems as good a reason as you can have. Much better
| than an accident or miscalculation.
| jajko wrote:
| Ukraine needs more manpower primarily, they keep saying
| it for a long time this is a critical issue, they have
| relatively enough equipment for waging war. At the end
| equipment can't solve it all, enough boots on the ground
| is what conquers or defends territories.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I agree, but they have still sent more aid than the US
| Nathanba wrote:
| The EU was united, namely in not bothering to help Ukraine.
| The US decided to want to help Ukraine and send weapons and
| set the tone and (slow) pace of the weapons that they sent.
| Only for them to pull the rug away later anyway. This is
| really terrible leadership, leaders who don't care about the
| results that they cause are poison. You can argue all day
| that it's sad and terrible that the EU wouldn't have helped
| at all. But under Germany's leadership at least this farce
| wouldn't have played out. You can argue then that it might
| cause problems later because Russia would be emboldened by a
| quick win in Ukraine. Fine but this is better now?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| That's an interesting take on a recent history that I did
| not live through.
| __d wrote:
| The US signed the treaty promising defence support to
| Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine handing over their nukes.
|
| Where is that now?
| jiriknesl wrote:
| You assume EU united would act strongly in favour of Ukraine.
| But there's no guarantee of that. There are significant
| differences in how for example, Poland approaches Ukraine
| with how Germany does it.
|
| I think, nations with bad historic experience with Russia
| support Ukraine significantly more.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They're running the same playbook they did with Yugoslavia.
| Sit around and do nothing until the US takes control. Not
| going to work out this time with the felon operating in chaos
| monkey mode.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Exactly what I said to alephnerd above.
| baq wrote:
| > But boy, will the nations of the world remember this -- how
| quickly the US can turn from ally to bully.
|
| Nothing new, smart people knew that for a long, looong time.
| May I remind you it took Pearl Harbor to get the US into WW2.
| ksaj wrote:
| It also took the White House being set on fire to understand
| the sovereignty of the land across its northern border. And
| now there's all this Trump talk of trying to invade once
| again.
| rcpt wrote:
| I don't think I understand this comment
| bchasknga wrote:
| Can you please inform me how the US bullied UK into mineral
| rights in WW2? We exported arms and equipment to them even
| before Lend-lease acts.
|
| It would be true if you were to mention about our special
| flavor of freedom exportation during the cold war. However,
| this time Ukraine is a democratic nation being invaded by our
| biggest political rival, Russia.
| Danieru wrote:
| No mineral rights: just gold up front.
|
| The UK paid the US all it's gold reserves. Next it stole of
| the UK people's gold to use that to buy weapons.
|
| The US was not giving the UK when it exported, it was
| selling. Lend lease came in once the UK ran out of gold. So
| the US gave them credit: which the UK tool until 2006 to
| repay.
| dralley wrote:
| FDR was opposed to imperialism, and so his terms for our
| meager involvement prior to direct entry into the war were
| pretty steep, as were his terms for the postwar order.
| Truman backed off on some of that though.
| throw16180339 wrote:
| We charged the UK quite heavily for our support. Quoting
| from (https://yarchive.net/space/politics/lend_lease.html)
|
| _In a political sense, well, that 's much more debatable.
| The problem there is that because the US itself did not
| feel threatened, US aid came with a price tag: the
| impoverishment of Britain and the demolition of the trade
| barriers around the British Commonwealth. US aid was on a
| cash-only basis until Britain had spent all its hard-
| currency reserves (both gold and negotiable securities).
| Then came the Lend-Lease agreement -- arguably the point
| where the US truly entered the war -- and its price tag was
| explicit, although unadvertised: the agreement itself
| contains a clause stipulating the removal of the
| Commonwealth's trade barriers._
| dh2022 wrote:
| Cry me a river for the death of British (and Dutch and
| Belgium and, later, French) colonialism...
| conradfr wrote:
| Well most of the nations of the world didn't do anything for
| Ukraine, or supported Russia one way or the other.
|
| Maybe a lot of them see the US and/or the Western countries as
| bullies anyway.
|
| edit: not sure by which part of the world this is downvoted ;)
| yetihehe wrote:
| > edit: not sure by which part of the world this is downvoted
| ;)
|
| It's downvoted because of this:
|
| > Well most of the nations of the world didn't do anything
| for Ukraine, or supported Russia one way or the other.
|
| Most of the world supports Ukraine or at least is not pro
| Russia, as you can see in UN votes. In latest vote, USA voted
| like Russia, North Korea and Israel, China abstained.
| conradfr wrote:
| The U.N vote is a good point but doesn't negate which
| countries did or didn't do things in relation to this war
| in the last three years.
|
| And after all Ukraine is far away for a lot of the world
| (but Russia maybe not so much).
| j_maffe wrote:
| Most countries can't afford funding a war on this
| magnitude even if they wanted to. And this war still
| squarely concerns solely the West, which the US is a part
| of, even if Trump overestimates the size of that pond.
| rectang wrote:
| Ukraine's situation is better than many people realize, and the
| US, in siding with Russia, may be betting on the wrong horse.
|
| The EU has provided more aid to Ukraine than the US, Ukraine
| drone production is through the roof. Europe needs Ukraine and
| its army as a bulwark against Russia.
| duxup wrote:
| I worry that Russia is more than capable of throwing mass
| casualties into the fight for longer than Ukraine can.
| trilobyte wrote:
| Most informed analysts say Russia has the opposite problem.
| They don't have any more meat for the grinder without
| tapping the middle and upper class of Russian citizens,
| which will have repercussions, potentially serious ones,
| for Putin.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| They're throwing North Koreans at the fight, which shows
| how desperate they are for bodies.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Well, North Korea benefits from getting experience and
| field-testing radios and winter underwear. The drone
| environment is very good advertising for their goal of
| becoming a major arms dealer.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Yes, North Korea gains immediate benefit (money or
| material aid) and a theoretical delayed benefit
| (demonstration of mercenary abilities, and real world
| experience for their troops if they survive). Russia
| gains bodies to throw against bullets. If every North
| Korean soldier died but took several bullets for Russian
| soldiers, it's a win for Russia. They do not care about
| the North Korean soldiers or North Korea.
| fernandopj wrote:
| Not on WWII levels, no. Also, not without serious blowback
| inhouse.
|
| And fighting Ukraine has made Russia vulnerable in all
| other proxy wars and fronts, such as Syria recently.
| duxup wrote:
| I worry they don't need wwii levels.
| nwatson wrote:
| China takes Siberia. Soon. And maybe Taiwan.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Colonize it while it remains nominally Russian, would be
| a pretty good move. "Sick Man of Europe"-style. "Oh we
| British are just, just, like, _helping_ the Ottomans
| administer Egypt, we 're good chaps like that"
| cyberax wrote:
| Russia is paying $40000 for people to get enrolled. It
| can't afford mass casualties at this cost.
| cuu508 wrote:
| Source for $40000?
| tootie wrote:
| Credit to Biden who set the tone. He was very fast and
| forceful in backing Ukraine even when the general assumption
| was that they had no chance. Europe was willing to step up
| since then and will have to carry them from now on.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| If only that credit had any weight against his equally
| quick decision to fund a Zionist genocide against
| Palestine, and engage in administrative subterfuge,
| Doublespeak and Ministry of Truth type shit about the true
| nature of the conflict.
| pjc50 wrote:
| You've see the weird Trump Zionist video, right?
| xdennis wrote:
| > Ukraine's situation is better than many people realize
|
| What makes you say that? I thought it was generally agreed
| that Ukraine has been on the back foot for a while now.
| People used to be quite optimistic about Ukraine recovering
| the occupied territories.
| fernandopj wrote:
| Current (by some of course) long-term analysis is that
| Ukraine is better commited to a long-term strategy of
| fiercely defending its rights, and it can grind Russia long
| term.
|
| If you like Game Theory, is more as if Ukraine is much more
| prone to Total War than Russia possible will. Russia is
| spending their own GDP maintaining the war, Ukraining is
| "spending" its infrastructure but has foreign money being
| poured in.
|
| That's why USA withdraw by Trump is so important to Russian
| interests.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The back foot is not a terrible thing. The rate of Russian
| advantages is very costly and slow.
| transcriptase wrote:
| There are two truths when it comes to Ukraine. The one
| quietly stated in dispassionate terms by actual military
| and geopolitical analysts which is that in the long run
| Ukraine loses in virtually every scenario, but it's in
| everyone except Ukraine's best interest to drag it out and
| for the West to weaken Russia via aid without the political
| fallout of actually putting boots on the ground.
|
| Then there's the "Ukraine will win as long as we keep
| sending aid" truth that the pubic needs to believe in order
| to accomplish that goal of weakening Russia since the
| alternative is Ukraine still loses but Russia doesn't
| suffer for it.
|
| I suspect someone misguidedly told Trump the first one, and
| his takeaway was that if Ukraine loses anyway, why should
| the American taxpayer be funding needless deaths.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Yes. But it's like any un-even fight.
|
| Russia was supposed to win easily right away. There is a
| huge size difference.
|
| But if the little guy, even thought has been on back foot
| since the beginning, has lasted 10 rounds, and still
| hitting back. They are on the back foot. But now it starts
| looking like a win could happen. The underdog wins the
| crowd right? Now looks like US is the bully.
| DennisP wrote:
| Ukraine isn't likely to recover much territory. But Russia
| will have a hard time taking more territory. At this point
| the war favors the defenders in either direction. Both
| sides are dug in and attackers get hammered by drones.
| gizmondo wrote:
| Ukraine's situation is worse than many people realize.
| Ukraine is losing the war right now with roughly equal
| support in monetary terms from both US and EU! They have huge
| manpower problems because of losses and apparent political
| inability to mobilize enough men. Even if EU suddenly doubled
| its aid to compensate (which I think is _very_ unlikely),
| there are gaps in weapons production in Europe, e.g. for
| SAMs.
| lawn wrote:
| How would you categorize Russia's manpower problem, given
| that they need to rely on North Korea for people, have to
| send injured soldiers back to the front line, and suffer
| multiple more deaths and injuries compared to Ukraine?
| gizmondo wrote:
| It's bad, but not as dire. Russian losses are very likely
| higher, but if I have to guess - multiples of 2 and above
| are just propaganda mixed with wishful thinking. They
| still didn't need to resort to further rounds of
| mobilization since 2022 or large scale usage of
| conscripts. And I don't understand what "North Korea"
| argument even is - Ukrainians would love to rely on
| someone else! But no one is willing to help in this
| department.
| neoromantique wrote:
| Russian losses are significantly higher, from what I hear
| in first hand reports are 3-4x at the very conservative
| end.
|
| What you are posting is not factual.
| gizmondo wrote:
| I mean, are Zelensky or Syrskyi willing to share truthful
| information with you in private? If so - good for you,
| otherwise I'm not sure what "first hand" reports you can
| use. I'm relying mostly on data about obituaries
| collected on both sides as proxy for true figures.
| neoromantique wrote:
| first hand reports from friends who are fighting the war
| every day. I'm sure the very lacking obituaries that
| Russia is actively fighting to suppress will give you a
| better picture.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| If you use Russian recruitment and army size numbers, you
| get much more realistic figures
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6-espHVSE. Russia is up
| to ~700k to 800k casualties Russia has lost ~3-4x more
| people than Ukraine so far.
| gizmondo wrote:
| I think that's probably a good estimate for the Russian
| side, while 200k casualties total for Ukraine is a joke.
| Aren't even their official figures for wounded in the
| 400k range?
| MaxPock wrote:
| Do invading armies suffer more casualties than defenders
| ?
| alabastervlog wrote:
| They're trying to avoid extensive drafts in their power-
| base cities for fear of unrest. Plus that's their reserve
| if they need to supply a second front for any reason.
| snovymgodym wrote:
| > How would you categorize Russia's manpower problem
|
| As strained, but not as bad as Ukraine's.
|
| Russia's population is over 140 million. That's 100
| million more than Ukraine's pre-war population. Russia's
| territory isn't meaningfully compromised, their cities
| aren't in ruin, their industry is mostly intact. They
| haven't sustained something like 15-25% population loss
| from people fleeing the way Ukraine has.
|
| North Koreans aren't in Russia because Russia is out of
| guys. Putin just wants to avoid wider scale
| conscription/mobilization if he can help it and will take
| other options first
|
| That's why earlier stages of this war involved ex-convict
| Wagnerite units, mercenaries from the third world, local
| militias raised from the "people's republics" in Donetsk
| and Luhansk, and conscription when necessary from poorer
| ethnic minority regions far away from Moscow and St.
| Petersburg.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > North Koreans aren't in Russia because Russia is out of
| guys. Putin just wants to avoid wider scale
| conscription/mobilization if he can help it and will take
| other options first
|
| This is correct and shockingly obvious given the initial
| invasion used mercenaries. It's a straightforward
| exchange with an ally that benefits Russia the most and
| is great PR for NK, internally and locally.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| At this point in time would anyone bet against US troops
| going in and "peacekeeping" for Putin against Ukraine? It
| seems pretty clear that the US is aligned against the
| West now.
|
| Almost everything pouring out of his mouth today is
| replaying what is in Russian state media sadly.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Manpower was always going to be their hardest-to-overcome
| problem in a protracted war. The relative population sizes
| when the war started meant they needed an _extremely_
| positive kill /death ratio (if you will) just to stay at
| parity.
| Muromec wrote:
| Being on the defense and retreating gives exactly that
| parity. Soviet doctrine even has a number for that which
| is somewhat close to the ratio of Ukrainian to russian
| populations.
| cyberax wrote:
| > Ukraine is losing the war right now
|
| Ukraine is _stalling_ the war right now. Russia is able to
| capture more moonscaped villages by forcing expendable
| (their words, not mine) manpower to assault Ukrainian
| positions.
|
| Ukraine is slowly retreating, but at the rate that will
| require Russia _years_ to gain a meaningful amount of
| territory.
| DennisP wrote:
| And that will cost Russia a great deal. This has turned
| into a war that heavily favors defenders. Both sides are
| dug in, with a wide no-mans-land between the front lines,
| where anyone who enters is likely to get killed by a
| drone.
| gruez wrote:
| >And that will cost Russia a great deal.
|
| How much is Russia spending on the war compared to
| Ukraine?
| DennisP wrote:
| What I mean is that attackers from either side will take
| a lot more casualties than defenders.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| Here are just some of the reasons Russia is hastening its
| economic demise:
|
| - spending all of its foreign reserves and weakening its
| currency
|
| - killing tens of thousands of working age men
|
| - permanently removing hundreds of thousands of working
| age men from the workforce
|
| - increasing the demands on social benefits for disabled
| veterans by hundreds of thousands of men
|
| - suppressing the birth rate by staying in a protracted
| 'special military operation'
| gizmondo wrote:
| The military experts I listen to all more or less agree
| that the focus on territory is just wrong. It's a war of
| attrition unsustainable in the long run for both sides,
| the question is who runs out of resources first (or if
| there is some sort of ceasefire before that). Germany
| famously lost such a war a century ago without losing any
| territory!
| cyberax wrote:
| That's correct. Territory captured is useless for Russia,
| but it's what Putin wants, so his generals push for it at
| a great expense.
|
| Ukraine is suffering 3-5 times fewer casualties than
| Russia, but it's also 3 times smaller than Russia.
| aparticulate wrote:
| > The generals push for territory at great expense
|
| ...by focusing on controlling sectors in mainly the East?
| nwatson wrote:
| Ukraine is sending troops over 26 or so years old now.
| They will need to dip into their prime-aged young
| population eventually, the 18-to-26-year-olds. That will
| be a hard moral choice they apparently want to avoid, but
| perhaps necessary.
| slt2021 wrote:
| All these 18 year old cohort - they dont exist in Ukraine
| anymore, a lot of them escaped Ukraine while they were
| minors before reaching 18, because this issue of
| conscripting 18+ has been discussed for quite a while.
|
| If you look at the reports from Ukraine high schools -
| its all girls class, no boys
| artem2471 wrote:
| Sorry what? Reports from Ukrainian high schools?
|
| I live in Ukraine, this is not true.
| enriquto wrote:
| As a graybeard with teenage kids, this is terribly
| disheartening... I would rather be cannon fodder than my
| sons. After all, I have already reproduced and I have
| taught hundreds of youngsters all what I knew. I would
| gladly accept that my contribution to mankind is already
| done and gone, before seeing one of my children go to
| war. Is youth so important for soldiers? Wouldn't it be
| better to send forty and fifty year olds to the front?
| Anything before 18-26 youngs? It makes no sense. Are they
| so much more competent than any random middle-age?
| slt2021 wrote:
| Ukraine has churned all their greybeards and middle age
| folks, and 18+ are the only ones not conscripted yet.
| (Hence Trump's comment that Ukraine is having manpower
| issues and has no strong cards left for negotiations)
| actionfromafar wrote:
| It hasn't any strong cards only because the west (which
| is now Europe - the US is almost at Russias side now) is
| trickling the weapons supply. Open the taps!
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| Fellow gray beard... while you and I may be young at
| heart, the knees and old sports injuries are not.
| Carrying a full kit and ammo 10 miles to the frontline
| would have been a lot easier a few decades ago. Instead
| of raw physical power and endurance, it's likely cunning
| and wisdom are our greatest strengths these days.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| What's the point of more recruits when the existing ones
| don't get enough training and adequate equipment? Ukraine
| needs weapons _far_ more than it needs manpower.
| mgh95 wrote:
| China has been supplying Russia missing materials
| (semiconductors, mostly; see:
| https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Recent-
| Publications...) and permitting their citizens to serve
| as mercinaries (see: https://www.newsweek.com/china-news-
| mercenaries-killed-ukrai...).
|
| For China, a balkanized nuclear Russia may be a greater
| threat than supplying them manpower (due to surplus men
| and civil unrest) and materiel. I would not expect Russia
| to run into the WW1 germany problem.
| jamiequint wrote:
| There's a difference between "siding with Russia" and siding
| with negotiated peace.
|
| Many people seem to think that the US, and to a lesser extent
| the EU, should fund this war indefinitely. However, the US
| clearly does not benefit from a direct war with Russia, and
| while we may gain from a proxy war, choosing not to fund it
| does not equate to "siding with Russia."
| twixfel wrote:
| The US has sided with Russia against European and Western
| civilisation. Don't understate what we are witnessing. The
| betrayal of civilisation is almost complete.
| TylerE wrote:
| When the "negotiated peace" is "Russia gets everything they
| want, you give us every dime and your treasury, and we
| don't promise to actually help you when Russia attacks
| again after we let them re-arm for as long as they
| like".... That isn't a peace deal, it's virtually
| unconditional surrender.
| jamiequint wrote:
| Under what circumtances is the US allowed to pull out of
| a war they didn't start, which does not directly involve
| any US interests, in which we have already invested
| $110bn? Never? Not until we spend another $500bn we don't
| have?
| TylerE wrote:
| This isn't pulling out. It's embarassing an ally on the
| world stage while acting like the spoiled toddler and
| Putin asset that he is. This is _not_ normal. This isn't
| even _bad_. This is outside politics and just flat out
| treasonous.
| lostdog wrote:
| No one is arguing that the US isn't allowed to pull out.
|
| But "negotiating" a treaty with the other side and then
| claiming that that treaty is the final word on the war is
| atrocious. That's what's crazy. Not ending US
| involvement, but trying to say that Ukraine must stop
| fighting.
|
| Now, I also think the US _should_ keep supporting
| Ukraine, but that 's a totally different topic.
| freejazz wrote:
| I think it's the characterization that Ukraine started the
| war that makes people feel a sentiment that is aligned with
| Russia.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > There's a difference between "siding with Russia" and
| siding with negotiated peace.
|
| There is absolutely no difference, when the US is
| negotiating that peace only with Russia, without Ukraine in
| the room.
|
| With Trump administration officials not able to name a
| single compromise they've asked from Russia.
|
| If the "negotiated peace" is "I asked the country that
| invaded you what they want, and you must do everything they
| asked for", that's not negotiation.
|
| I will never understand how people can be so quick to
| abandon independence nations, and are so willing to bow to
| dictators. You would cheer Chamberlain submitting to Hitler
| as he launches an invasion as a momentous day for peace.
| You would be wrong then, and you are wrong now.
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| "stop advancing" is the compromise asked from Russia
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Negotiated peace was what Russia and Ukraine had before,
| and Russia unilaterally broke it.
|
| That is why the focus now is on security guarantees, which
| the U.S. is refusing so far. Without those, anything
| negotiated is a gift to Russia, specifically the gift of
| time to regroup and re-arm for another attack later on.
|
| Lasting peace is not created by concessions, it is created
| when instigators believe they have more to lose than to
| gain from further violence.
| theGnuMe wrote:
| US security guarantees are probably not worth the paper
| they are written on.
| jamiequint wrote:
| It is an absurd position that the US should be on the
| hook to indefinitely pay for any war anywhere in the
| world forever, and if they attempt to negotiate peace
| while pulling out of that war that they are siding with
| the opposition.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The problem is not that the U.S. is trying to negotiate
| for peace, the problem is that the administration is
| doing a hilariously bad job of it by giving up all
| leverage right off the bat.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Not sure how entertaining a petulant State Department
| puppet with a maxxed out credit card counts as leverage?
| US orchestrated Euromaidan in order to eliminate Russia
| from the chess board and balkanize the region. That's our
| negotiating position in the West.
| aparticulate wrote:
| I think it's a fine rule of thumb but what does Putin
| have to gain from negotiating with Zelenskyy who he is
| seen as a Western puppet orchestrated as legacy of US
| intel agency involvement? (Which we admitted is true...)
|
| People in this thread are completely incapable of seeing
| any legitimacy in any Russian concerns about Ukraine.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Whether someone's concerns are legitimate is in the eye
| of the beholder, but actions can be directly observed.
| Unilateral violent invasion must not become a legitimate
| tactic again. It was the norm for centuries, and
| excluding it resulted in the fastest rise in global
| living standards in history--including in the U.S. and
| Russia.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Do you recommend violent 2014 coups instead? That is our
| position on Ukraine, officially.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Yes, actually, that's how a lot of modern states got
| founded.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| The US has literally sided with Russia in the UN.
| mcv wrote:
| Yes, there's a difference, and what Trump is doing is
| clearly siding with Russia. His "negotiated peace" is
| neither negotiated nor peace. It's a surrender.
|
| You don't have to support Ukraine indefinitely; only until
| Russia stops. Your options are to support Ukraine until
| Russia stops, or to surrender until Russia stops.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| This is not a popular analysis. Russia has ramped up their
| war machine significantly over the last 2 years and have been
| successfully grinding Ukraine down. They can and will
| continue to do this. They've reoriented their economy around
| sustained military production, and the tariffs issued against
| Russia by the US and EU have proven to be ineffective.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| The regions Russia is taking from Ukraine have some value in
| terms of GDP. It's interesting that the Freudian slip US
| offering involved an additional minerals deal (as in, this is
| the main interest of the taking parties). Russia is not going
| to give back GDP, and that's probably behind the break in
| negotiations. Russia is not relinquishing any gains, and the
| US wants more resources, and there is no guarantee given to
| Ukraine regarding its remaining territorial integrity. They
| are trying to make Ukraine eat shit.
| nwatson wrote:
| Ukraine knows the future of warfare and will prosper if they
| survive this. They will be the ones with the technology and
| experience in future warfare, and the USA is throwing away a
| chance to partner with Ukraine and guarantee such a victory.
|
| In 20, 15, or 7 years from now when terrorists are sending
| drones into medium-sized cities in Alabama to kill
| indiscriminately, it would have been better for the USA to
| have been on Ukraine's side.
|
| EDIT: better grammar, maybe
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The value of having a front-row seat to this, from a
| doctrine and R&D point of view, is _staggeringly_ high.
| Anyone who 's getting copied on the reports is going to be
| a full generation ahead of countries that aren't.
|
| ... that goes for Russia's partners, too. Meaning it's even
| more important for us.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| that may be enough to sway US military leadership
| kelnos wrote:
| Trump is the commander in chief. Top military leadership
| who disagree with him will be forced to retire, and
| replaced with loyalists, if they haven't been already.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| There's always the option of a coup
| aimanbenbaha wrote:
| >In 20, 15, or 7 years from now when terrorists are sending
| drones into medium-sized cities in Alabama to kill
| indiscriminately, it would have been better for the USA to
| have been on Ukraine's side.
|
| Spot on. This is what Zelenskyy implied when he said "now
| you have an ocean but one day you'll know how it feels".
| But the dumb kakistocrat commander-in-chief took it
| personally.
|
| By the way remember the New Jersey drone sightings that
| spooked the East Coast for a week? That was likely the
| government secretly testing defense deployement against a
| hypothetical drone swarms attack.
| sph wrote:
| Betting on the wrong horse while Xi just has to stand aside
| to see the crown of superpower being handed to him with no
| effort, Russia on the road to implode in a fire sale, while
| China looks to sign lucrative trade agreements with the EU.
|
| Brexit was shooting yourself in the foot, today was a
| gruesome display of diplomatic suicide on live television.
| mcv wrote:
| The EU could end up taking that crown if they handle this
| well.
|
| Firstly of course, they need to be united, steadfast and
| decisive in their support for Ukraine until Russia
| collapses. They should be building new alliances, with
| India, South America, and any free countries in Africa and
| Asia. And maybe some unfree ones. Possibly even China,
| because let's face it, despite its many flaws, China is not
| the threat to Europe that Russia is. A wedge between China
| and Russia would weaken Russia and help the EU.
|
| Then, after Russia collapses and the US has withdrawn from
| the world stage, it will be the EU that saved Ukraine, just
| like after WW2, the new super powers where the US and USSR
| that defeated Germany. And Ukraine has a lot to offer that
| the EU lacks.
|
| The EU is incredibly powerful. Biggest common market in the
| world, half a billion people, 2nd largest military in the
| world if they put it all together. The EU just needs to
| learn to flex its muscles, to unite and assert itself,
| instead of hiding behind the US.
| rectang wrote:
| The ascent of Europe is the sort of outcome I might hope
| for -- speaking as an American who believes in American
| values that my country no longer represents.
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| I'm not religious, but if I was, this is what I'd be
| praying for. Most alternatives I can imagine seem pretty
| dire.
| aimanbenbaha wrote:
| > _China is not the threat to Europe that Russia is. A
| wedge between China and Russia would weaken Russia and
| help the EU_
|
| It gets interesting when you realize that Russia is also
| a rival to China in Northeast Asia. A balkanized Russia,
| like the one the EU could have manifested had it took
| Russia warnings seriously and brought about decisive
| action after troops were invading Crimea. But no they
| lived in their "End of History" fantasy and that virtuous
| liberties will magically be spread if we just trade goods
| and ideas between spheres of influence.
|
| Of course this reality will be bad for our allies in Asia
| (ie. Japan, SK, Taiwan). But maybe this time it'll wake
| up some in America from becoming isolationist again.
| mcv wrote:
| I see SK and Japan also as necessary allies for the EU.
| But if China decides to take Taiwan, I don't think
| there's anything the EU could possibly hope to do about
| it; Taiwan remains independent because the US guarantees
| their independence. If Trump were to withdraw that
| guarantee too, I don't think there's anything that can
| save Taiwan.
|
| It sucks, but the EU has more urgent problems closer to
| home. All I can hope for is that Trump hates China enough
| that he'll continue to guarantee Taiwan's freedom. But
| I'm sure at some point he's going to ask them for some
| more material "thanks" too.
|
| But yeah, the EU's relationship with China should not be
| the same as that with other allies. But I think there's
| room for some cooperation, and the EU might not object
| too loudly if China were to take outer Manchuria back,
| for example.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I don't think Europe can or should ally with a country
| that is treating the Uyghurs the way it is, regardless of
| the geopolitics.
|
| Trump is old, fat and infirm. Hopefully he will be gone
| soon and we return to some sort of sanity.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| Trump's approach is probably going to work partially in the
| short term. - The US is very powerful, a lot of countries
| are reliant on them, so bullying can be used to extract
| benefits. They got their plane thingy with Colombia, Mexico
| didn't react much to the preludes of military action
| against the cartels. The US could annex the Panama Canal
| and Greenland.
|
| There's a reason why hawks like Bolton and Cheney are
| against it. It harms US interests in the mid-to-long-term.
| To me it seems like the Trump adminstration is a) trying to
| distract from their domestic agenda and b) isolate the US
| internationally and create new external foes to justify
| domestic changes.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| EU alone has provided more than the US, add UK and NO, and
| the difference is substantial.
| jemmyw wrote:
| Yes, plus Ukraine learnt a lesson when the GOP stalled aid
| and they ran low on supplies, so they have stockpiled and
| domestic production has increased. It's a war of attrition
| and so both sides are hoping to keep going until the other
| collapses. The US withdrawing support is a victory for
| Russian, but it won't end the war. What happens with
| sanctions might, but also without the US telling them what to
| do the gloves will be off Ukraine.
|
| So much for stopping the war in 24hrs. Trump's plans were
| never going to work there, and both Russian and Ukraine were
| going to try and make it look like the failure was not their
| fault - guess Russian won that particular battle, maybe it
| was never even a contest.
| pkaye wrote:
| The US military was concerned about this scenario long before
| and raised concerns back in 2011. They predicted why someone
| like Trump would would come in power and question the purpose
| of NATO. But it was not taken seriously by NATO allies at that
| time. Obama even wanted European allies to be able to launch
| their own military missions with just US as a support role. The
| Libya interventions was supposed to be a test of that.
|
| https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-spe...
| alephnerd wrote:
| Yep. The warnings have existed for a long time, but most
| European states have continued to ignore the hallmarks.
|
| Even Poland only started rearming after Kazynski's plane was
| shot down in Smolensk in 2010 (edit; not shot down), Romania
| only (started after Crimea and it's implications of a similar
| incident in neighboring Moldova in 2014, Turkiye began due
| interventions in Syria and Libya that lead to Turkish and
| Russian soldiers fighting against each other in 2012-15, and
| Netherlands after over a hundred of their citizens were shot
| down in an Air Malaysia Flight in 2015-16 (forgetting the
| exact date)
|
| Trump is absolutely wrong in publicly abandoning our European
| allies, but this is something every administration since 2008
| has been saying would eventually happen.
|
| The failed UK-France intervention in Libya should have been
| the warning call (France and UK's air forces couldn't disable
| Libya's A2AD and ran out of precision muntions, forcing the
| Obama admin to intervene and spark the Benghazi crisis which
| helped bring Trump into the Oval Office in 2016). In fact,
| that incident probably further emboldened Russia as Libya's
| military apparatus was heavily Russian/Soviet in armament and
| strategy.
| bgarbiak wrote:
| Uhm, that Polish plane wasn't shot down. Don't spread silly
| conspiracy theories. Polish military spendings were rising
| steadily since long before the accident, but a significant
| increase happened after Russian full scale invasion on
| Ukraine.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Fair point about the Smolensk Incident - confused it with
| the Netherlands incident - but it was that incident that
| sparked Poland's fears about Russia again [0], and most
| of Poland's military buildup and modernization only began
| in the 2012-13 period after the partnership with South
| Korea kicked in [1][2]
|
| [0] - https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-
| europe/2015/0...
|
| [1] - https://www.president.pl/president-
| komorowski/news/poland-so...
|
| [2] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/107367
| 00.2020.1...
| adrr wrote:
| World needs to help out Ukraine because if Ukraine falls it
| shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons for
| any agreement or treaty. They are just pieces of paper that
| guarantee nothing. This will just lead to more countries
| getting nukes which means higher likelihood of a nuclear war.
| poszlem wrote:
| > World needs to help out Ukraine because if Ukraine falls it
| shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons for
| any agreement or treaty.
|
| This is, unfortunately, already the case. No country will
| ever fully trust such treaties again, and we are closer than
| ever to a new era of nuclear proliferation.
| usrusr wrote:
| True. Non-proliferation is dead, killed three years ago. Only
| when Ukraine gets Russia to the point of a Compiegne Forest
| railroad car end (remember how much of Germany had been
| occupied at that point?) there is hope for a future without
| widespread nuke availability.
| ttepasse wrote:
| Dumb nitpicking, sorry:
|
| The railroad car was used in 1918 and in 1940. In both
| cases Germany was unoccupied, in WW1 because the war was
| fought on French and on Flandern fields, in 1940 because it
| was the beginning of the war.
|
| You're possibly thinking of the German surrender, first in
| Reims, then a day later again in Berlin.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Germany is now outright advocating that France replace US
| nuclear weapons on Western European soil with its own.
|
| Charles de Gaulle is somewhere under a tombstone grinning ear
| to ear saying "I told you so."
|
| Very strange times.
|
| https://kyivindependent.com/france-could-send-nuclear-
| armed-...
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| > They are just pieces of paper that guarantee nothing.
|
| You just noticed? Rules/treaties are useless unless you have
| the power to enforce them.
| grandiego wrote:
| > it shows that you should never give up your nuclear weapons
| for any agreement or treaty
|
| This is something every related country already knows, think
| of Pakistan and North Korea. Are you expecting China and
| India to drop their nukes because of some nice treaty?
|
| > World needs to help out Ukraine...
|
| ... to achieve peace ASAP, because thousands of lives are
| being lost.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| The EU is going to be thinking long and hard if the US really
| is so much more friendly than China.
| ctrlp wrote:
| Frankly, the EU is only able to "think long and hard" but never
| to actually do anything. They have no warfighters anymore and
| it will take years for the member states of the EU to rebuild
| anything resembling military capability, if the EU even allows
| it. Brussels is the equivalent to the Deep State in the US but
| with official status, instead of being a shadow government. The
| only leverage EU member states have vis a vis the US is as
| trading partners and as vassal states for Pax Americana. If the
| EU wants to move away from the US, good luck. The member states
| of the EU are soon going to realize they are "a peninsula at
| the tip of Eurasia" and their best interests lie in close ties
| to the US.
|
| Ukraine is in a bind, and it is sad when a buffer state is put
| through the meat grinder in a proxy war between two great
| powers. But here we are. The upside is that the Ukrainians who
| weren't killed in the conflict will be, along with Poland and
| Lithuania, the only "European" states with anything resembling
| a capable military. I doubt the EU members want Ukraine as a
| full member of NATO. Too risky. There are some proposals on the
| table for a more complicated peace without conceding full
| neutrality of Ukraine to Russia.
|
| I don't think many people understand the nature of this
| conflict. They merely see "Russian aggression" but have little
| comprehension of great power competition and the events leading
| up to the hot part of this war. I feel for the Ukrainians but I
| wonder if any of the Ukraine boosters would shed a drop of
| their own blood for Ukraine. If the US demands that the
| Europeans take a larger role in the security of Europe, we will
| see if the European NATO members are up to the task. The US
| needs to pivot its resources to China in the coming decade. The
| war with Russia has been very costly and strengthened the bonds
| between Russia and China (and Iran and North Korea). The
| Europeans should take a great role in policing their own
| neighborhood, but I don't believe the EU, as currently
| constructed, is the governance vehicle capable of leading a
| unified Europe. The member states are, quite understandably,
| not happy to give up their sovereignty and culture.
| Participation in a common market has been a disaster for the
| working class of Western Europe (unless you think cheaper
| products is the only measure of a country's vitality). The EU
| experiment might be at an inflection point. They can remain in
| this bureaucratic quagmire, or reassert the spirit of
| Wesphalian sovereignty, or await the arrival of a new
| Charlemagne to unite a strong Europe under sovereign leadership
| capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. My money
| is on the decline of the EU into irrelevance and a return to
| the Westphalian spirit. There is no political will centered in
| Brussels capable of leading this ragtag assemblage of diverse
| states and peoples. The border problems persist. The result
| will be more populist revolts and ascendant "right wing"
| parties advocating "blood and soil" nationalism. If that's the
| future, then the western european states will only be supported
| militarily via bilateral treaties with the US or under the
| umbrella of a NATO dominated by the US. The latter is just the
| norm for the post-WWII "New World Order" so it will feel
| familiar. With luck, the collapse of the EU will allow EU
| member states to reassert control over their own borders and
| laws. If that happens, they should abandon this resentment of
| the US and be grateful they were saved from the managed decline
| of their central government in Brussels.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Interesting take. I mostly disagree, but you do make a good
| point that Europe won't be willing to "shed blood" for
| Ukraine.
| anonymousDan wrote:
| And the US are? It's an absolute garbage take.
| nemothekid wrote:
| 1. The US has shed blood for far less serious reasons.
| Less than 5 years ago we were "shedding blood" for opium
| farms in the middle east.
|
| 2. As it stands today, the US comes out on top. They paid
| a measly sum to throw Russia in the meat grinder and it
| will take decades until Russia is threat to the US again.
|
| 3. Our military hawks now get to focus on China. EU still
| has to worry about Russia
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| I don't think America would/should shed blood for Ukraine
| nor Europe for that matter. We have bigger issues at the
| moment, like illegal immigrants, drug cartels, corruption,
| and China's stated ambitions in the Pacific.
| cbg0 wrote:
| > Frankly, the EU is only able to "think long and hard" but
| never to actually do anything. They have no warfighters
| anymore and it will take years for the member states of the
| EU to rebuild anything resembling military capability, if the
| EU even allows it.
|
| What are you on about? EU countries + UK have over a million
| professional military personnel.
|
| > Brussels is the equivalent to the Deep State in the US but
| with official status, instead of being a shadow government.
|
| The EU parliament has members elected from each country in
| the EU, there's no deep state conspiracy there.
|
| > The member states of the EU are soon going to realize they
| are "a peninsula at the tip of Eurasia" and their best
| interests lie in close ties to the US.
|
| This is the complete opposite of what's actually going on, EU
| countries are realizing we need a stronger EU and we need to
| fend for ourselves and will be moving away from US ties.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Russia has 1.5 million active military personnel. So you're
| basically saying that the entire EU+UK is militarily
| smaller than a country (Russia) that has a GDP less than
| Texas.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "I have more soldiers than you" isn't the only thing that
| counts.
| cbg0 wrote:
| EU+UK aren't conscripting at this time and also have much
| better training and equipment than Russia, so the
| comparison isn't apples to apples, I was just saying that
| we do in fact have "warfighters".
| ctrlp wrote:
| EU+UK don't/can't/won't "conscript". They will have a
| volunteer military (or possibly deals with mercenary
| armies, or foreign recruits in exchange for citizenship)
| unless and until something catastrophic happens. If it
| comes conscription, it will have been a unconscionable
| failure of leadership.
| Vilian wrote:
| Same argument that people said that russia would steam
| roll over Ukraine because they have more people and
| equipment
| ctrlp wrote:
| "Professional military personnel" are not warfighters. How
| many of those "personnel" (did you mean "troops") have been
| deployed in a non UN peacekeeping capacity or as troop
| liasons? Very few. Meanwhile, the US just concluded a 20
| year adventure in Afghanistan and Iraq. And has been waving
| a "big stick" standing behind little brothers in other
| conflicts. Ukraine's military (what's left of it) is
| actually battle-hardened and could probably turn around and
| beat Europe if Russia let up and they were so inclined (I
| jest, but maybe not).
|
| The "deep state" is not a "conspiracy". It's a form of
| parallel government. Nothing unique about that in history.
| (The Roman Catholic Church should be familiar to all
| Europeans.) The comparison is to point out that there are
| two "sovereignties" in play (member states and EU) making
| laws. And when you have two, you have none.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| Must we endlessly fund a war that is in stalemate and will
| continue to savagely end the lives of military and civilian
| alike? Otherwise, we are a bully? Is it in our interest to
| continue to run up debt, send overseas ammunition and hardware?
| To what end? And for how long? I remember wondering the same
| during Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this really America's permanent
| responsibility, for any country in the world?
|
| It's quite remarkable the change in America over a couple
| decades. In the 90s, the left was solidly pro-free-speech and
| anti-war. Anti-war sometimes to a fault, even. Maybe aside from
| some censorship effort of rap and Mortal Kombat, you could
| count on the left to defend free speech at nearly any cost.
|
| Now, it is the left that seems interested in doubling down on
| wars, without any plan for escape, and of "reigning in" speech
| deemed by some as harmful.
|
| I'm not here to say correct or incorrect. Pick your own ice
| cream flavor. My point is that it's striking how much the
| parties have flipped 180 degrees (on some issues).
| i_love_retros wrote:
| No one is saying you are a bully for wanting to end the war.
|
| You are a bully for the disgusting way Trump and Vance just
| treated Zelenksy
| i_love_retros wrote:
| And they way they are trying to bully Ukraine into a
| minerals agreement and rebuilding agreement to strip
| Ukraine of everything it has. Trump doesn't care about
| peace, he wants to make money
| mrcwinn wrote:
| If the war ends, that is peace. Do you believe Ukraine
| will be better off financially by continuing the war,
| even if it is on America's credit card? They will not
| flourish in the present state, however noble they believe
| the effort is. War is not fair.
| just-ok wrote:
| Ukraine has lost massive amounts of lives, territory, and
| foreign funding under his leadership; Zelensky effectively
| has zero negotiating power.
|
| Where are the voices that simply want the war to end so
| people stop dying? It's easy to say bully this and ally
| that from the comfort of your office while _hundreds of
| thousands_ of people die in a strip of land most
| "supporters" couldn't point out on a map. At this point
| there's a collective ego tied to the outcome more than
| there is any care for the actual people involved.
| anonymousDan wrote:
| Some things are worth fighting for you quisling.
| just-ok wrote:
| As long as someone else does the fighting, right? Last I
| checked, the majority of Ukrainians themselves want a
| quick end to the war.
|
| [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/653495/half-ukrainians-
| quick-ne...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I want a million dollars. Very much!
|
| That doesn't mean I'll accept your proposal to rob a
| bank.
| sterlind wrote:
| What a dogshit poll. There were three options given:
|
| 1. Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the
| war.
|
| 2. Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war
| as soon as possible.
|
| 3. Don't know/Refused.
|
| "Ukraine should surrender unconditionally" and "Ukraine
| should negotiate permanent security guarantees" and
| "Ukraine should fight its way into a better negotiating
| position" are all in the same bucket. This is maliciously
| bad poll design.
| umanwizard wrote:
| I'm a bully for how someone I don't know treated someone
| else I don't know, because he happens to be the head of
| state of the country I live in?
| j_maffe wrote:
| You, as in the country.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Yes. Democracy means we are culpable for what our leaders
| do.
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| Zelensky is an adult, a leader of a country, who has many
| lives in his hands. He is not a baby that needs to be
| coddled.
| layer8 wrote:
| They didn't even let him speak a sentence without
| interruption.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > and of "reigning in" speech deemed by some as harmful.
|
| Can you cite any legislative efforts anywhere in the USA by
| any elected Democrat that limits, coerces or in anyway
| "reigns in" speech of any sort?
| no_exit wrote:
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/schumer-pushing-to-codify-
| ihra...
|
| https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-
| releases/lett...
| krelian wrote:
| This is a defensive war. This is the lesson we learned when
| the world did nothing to stop Hitler's initial aggression.
| This is the moment of truth. Doing nothing is easy, it's the
| default. We now know the possible consequences and we've made
| our mind to not let that happen again. Have we learned
| nothing?
| mcphage wrote:
| > Is it in our interest to continue to run up debt, send
| overseas ammunition and hardware?
|
| Whose economy gets the money spent? If it's ours--and it is--
| then yes, it's obviously in our interest to continue to run
| up debt.
| i_love_retros wrote:
| I'm concerned the US is turning from ally to enemy of the EU.
| nxm wrote:
| They're not though... it's just that endless billions being
| sent for a war that Europe won't proportionally help support
| has to end. How much more money and lives will be wasted in
| Ukraine?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Ask Russia?
| apelapan wrote:
| The killing won't stop until Russia is firmly stopped.
| There is no peace without completely and permanently
| pacifying Russia. They will attack again and again until we
| render them unable to continue. The best time to do this is
| thirty years ago, the second best time is now.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| I believe the clip of the interview disproves that point.
| If money was the problem (or, more generally, a protracted
| investment in a conflict perceived as senseless) then a
| sobering talk would be the way - think of the speech that
| Biden gave when he announced that the US was withdrawing
| from Afghanistan for similar reasons, fully aware of what
| the likely consequences would be.
|
| This interview, on the other hand, has the US VP talking on
| top of a head of state while chastising him for not being
| grateful enough while pressuring him to take a deal that
| would effectively surrender Ukraine to US and Russian
| interests. Whatever the objective of this meeting was, "a
| fair result for Ukraine and its dead" did not seem to be
| it.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future
| of NATO now.
|
| European defense spending has, for decades now, suggested that
| they don't particularly care about NATO. Well, the Western
| European members at least. Those who used to live in the Warsaw
| Pact take it more seriously - see Poland, for example.
|
| They also should have been thinking about the implications of
| buying so much gas from the Russians for the last 15 years. The
| invasion of Georgia should have been a trigger to move off of
| Russian exports permanently. Instead it just brought further
| dependence and a major pipeline project.
|
| I despise Trump as much as anyone but strategic security
| shouldn't rest on one country never being in a position to
| elect an isolationist demagogue.
| JW_00000 wrote:
| > European defense spending has, for decades now, suggested
| that they don't particularly care about NATO.
|
| I'd argue the opposite: Western European countries' low
| defense spending was exactly because they they believed NATO
| (in particular the US) would intervene if needed. They don't
| believe this anymore now, hence will increase defense
| spending, hence making NATO less relevant. They will now be
| able to rely on the EU alone.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| > I'd argue the opposite: Western European countries' low
| defense spending was exactly because they they believed
| NATO (in particular the US) would intervene if needed. They
| don't believe this anymore now, hence will increase defense
| spending, hence making NATO less relevant. They will now be
| able to rely on the EU alone.
|
| They're increasing spending, but that takes years to
| translate to real results.
|
| It's not particularly hard to pump out a few hundred
| thousand rifles, small arms ammo, and hand them to cannon
| fod... I mean... the fighting-age men of a country.
|
| What _is_ hard is developing a weapons industry that can
| act upon intelligence provided by spies planted in places
| like Russia, develop systems with indigenous technologies,
| and produce them at scale, all with the logistics to make
| them mean something on the battlefield. This was on full
| display during WWII, when some more advanced weapons came
| out of Germany too late and in too small of numbers to give
| the Nazis a chance to avoid the ass kicking they so richly
| deserved.
|
| That takes decades to develop. Europeans, with the
| exception of the UK and maybe France, have let that fruit
| rot on the vine since 1991. Putin wouldn't have made this
| gamble if he didn't think this.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| I bet this is all a part of Trump's strategy into pushing
| Europe into geopolitical irrelevance. And if it counts for
| anything, the Europeans did this to themselves by relying on
| the goodwill of America for their own security.
| mcswell wrote:
| Seems to me that the country Trump is pushing into
| geopolitical irrelevance is the United States of America.
| Thanks to him, we're making enemies of friends and allies,
| throwing away our influence on the world, throwing away any
| claim we had to being a model, and turning in on ourselves.
| Trump is MALA: Make America Little Again.
| dh2022 wrote:
| And purpose would that serve Trump? Make Europe weaker... for
| what? To build a casino in Paris?
| OKRainbowKid wrote:
| And what will happen instead is the US losing their status as
| hegemon/leader of the "free" world / West, with all the
| benefits that entailed.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Or maybe being the hegemon doesn't mean you have to
| instigate and bankroll wars in every corner of this earth.
| gorbachev wrote:
| This is exactly right. Current US allies should not trust the
| United States to stand with them at least for the next four
| years or so.
|
| I would go further than that and say you can't trust the US for
| anything, ever. The United States will not keep long term
| commitments for more than four years at a time. If you're
| lucky, or unlucky depending on which side you're on, that cycle
| will last 8 years.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| This is just fear mongering. No one has done more for its
| allies all over the world than the US. This however doesn't
| mean we always have to do everything everyone wants or in the
| way they want. We want peace, if that peace isn't the best
| solution for Ukraine we don't have to care about that, we DID
| NOT start this war.
|
| The best way for the world to not need to worry about the US
| aid is to not be jerks, if everyone is calm there is nothing
| to worry about. Everyone is just agitated because now the
| possibility of "American's won't come and die for us" like
| they all hoped they would is coming home. Now they have to
| actually do something they are all agitated.
| speff wrote:
| > American's won't come and die for us
|
| Not one person ever expected American blood to be spilled
| in Ukraine. Framing the opposing side with having these
| thoughts is arguing in bad faith. And what peace is there
| in letting a bully get away with the spoils? What's going
| to stop them from doing it again?
|
| And yea the US didn't technically start the war, but if
| Ukraine didn't give up their nukes because of assurances by
| the US, then they wouldn't have been in this situation.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I don't know if I'd phrase it as the "power" to do whatever it
| wants.
|
| Anyone can always do whatever they want. And the only way there
| aren't repercussions on some level are if you're some kind of
| god-like being sealed in the equivalent of closed terrarium.
|
| Does the US have power? Sure. But the US could act
| disgracefully even if it didn't have power.
|
| The framing I'd give this is that the US is trying to extort
| Ukraine without actually bringing anything to the table, and
| all it's going to accomplish is making the US itself less
| powerful, less reputable, the rest of the world more convinced
| that nuclear weapons need proliferate because otherwise
| invasions are on the table, and a litany of other things that
| will basically make the US weaker over time.
| mutatio wrote:
| Make no mistake, this display was a disgrace, but... after the
| annexation of Crimea the EU (Germany) moved ahead with Nord
| Stream 2, we are culpable too, massively. Ironically there's a
| famous video of none other than Trump lambasting the Germans
| about it.
| timewizard wrote:
| > how quickly the US can turn from ally to bully
|
| As if this lesson hasn't been conveyed for the past 30 years.
|
| How anyone can sit here after the Iraq war and say any of this
| with a straight face is beyond me.
| yes_really wrote:
| I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US
| shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the
| war."
|
| I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees?
| Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that
| Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in
| 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we
| just trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing
| here?
| twothreeone wrote:
| Trump can't provide that because any "security guarantee"
| from the US would essentially translate into "send armed
| troops", which is something that would run counter to his
| campaign stance.
| yes_really wrote:
| Isn't there a middle ground possible? For example, a
| guarantee, in law, that the US and Europe send military
| equipment to Ukraine if there is another war in the future?
| nwatson wrote:
| With Trump's fragile ego, there's a chance he will designate
| all humanitarian charitable organizations, and military-aid
| organizations, to whom USA citizens might want to donate, that
| have any ties to or otherwise benefit Ukraine, as terrorist
| organizations. I will be evaluating these ... if you have plans
| to assist, it may be better to do so sooner rather than later.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| US was always a bully Trump is doing overtly what US has been
| doing covertly using CIA etc for decades. Actually Trump is
| more honest than previous US administrations as those would
| have killed Zelensky and then blamed it on China or Russia if
| he was not willing to do what they want.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The US has been a bully since at least WW2. The US has been
| betraying "allies" for just as long.
|
| Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a godsend for US
| influence. Finland and Sweden joined NATO. The Russian military
| was exposed as a paper tiger. A huge portion of the Russian
| military's capability was destroyed without a single US
| military serviceman or asset being deployed. Russian energy
| exports to Europe (and the influence that gives them) have
| dropped to a mere fraction of what they were in 2020. Europe is
| now dependant on US LNG exports.
|
| The second largest military in NATO is Turkey and Turkey is
| America's puppet. Turkey has been in direct military conflict
| with other NATO members (ie Greece) with the blessing of the
| US.
|
| Ceding territory to Russia, which seems all but inevitable now,
| doesn't change the the security picture for Europe. Russia
| still can't occupy Ukraine. That was true before the invasion.
| It's still true now. They certainly can't roll into Poland let
| alone Germany and Western Europe.
|
| The EU really has no interest in paying for their own security.
| Politically it's a nonstarter too with the right of far-right
| parties like National Front in France and AfD, AfD in Germany
| and Reform in the UK.
| taylodl wrote:
| The future of NATO is secure. It just won't include the US.
| Whether that exclusion is done implicitly or explicitly remains
| to be seen. The US has put itself in the position where it has
| no allies and no peaceful trading partners. That's not going to
| work out well for them, regardless of how much military might
| they believe they have.
| attentive wrote:
| Not only that, now only insane nation won't try to get nukes.
|
| Expect insane nukes proliferation.
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| European Democracies should start a, new, NATO-like military
| Alliance on their own, but without Trump's America. (and
| without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
|
| And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of
| the membership criteria being anti-soviet communism, as in
| NATO, it should be effective Liberal Democracy - and - Freedom
| from Exceptionalist Exemptions, namely from the International
| Rule of Law. So, to be part,
|
| 1. Compulsory International Criminal Court membership and
| compliance - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no
| exceptionalistic Israel.
|
| 2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, _composite_ of
| a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others:
| therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it.
| Poland, Slovakia, Italy: time to make some hard choices if you
| want in.
|
| 3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance,
| and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
|
| Not one more _new_ military equipment purchase from the US,
| (and dispreference for other non-qualifying nations
| procurement). Member nations should use their - substantial -
| industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous
| military materiel.
|
| Hey, it would be actually great for the economy!
|
| Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope
| (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended
| partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South
| Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
|
| US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future
| selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's
| full criteria as every other member.
|
| Same applies for prospective new members.
|
| Sweden shows how principled positions can be maintained while
| building serious defense capabilities. Now multiply that model
| by Europe's combined industrial and technological base.
|
| We just need the political will to execute - instead of just
| rolling over and wagging our tail to bullies.
| wesselbindt wrote:
| > the US can turn from ally to bully
|
| This has been par for the course for decades. They used to be
| on good terms with Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran after they
| couped Mossadegh. Heck, they even armed and trained Osama Bin
| Laden to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. It has always been a
| deadly gambit to ally yourself with the United States.
|
| I'm not saying it's universally the case of course. For every
| Saddam there's a Pinochet, for every Gaddafi there's a Suharto.
| But the fact that the US can drop an ally just like that should
| not be a surprise to anyone.
| belter wrote:
| These are verified charities list.
|
| Help Ukraine:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/?share_id=xG...
|
| Dont buy from Companies doing business with Russia:
| https://leave-russia.org/
| nomel wrote:
| They should have been thinking for a long time now, but
| weren't. For the 2% requirement:
|
| 2015: 5 countries
|
| 2021: 9 countries
|
| 2024: 23 countries
|
| I don't think these levels would have improved so quickly
| without the US being a bully.
| francasso wrote:
| The EU needs to get armed to the teeth and to pile up on nukes.
| The US cannot be trusted, half of the country is compromised
| and that's not something that will change any time soon, even
| after Trump goes to meet his creator.
| preisschild wrote:
| Its time for EUrope to step up. If the US doesn't want to be the
| "arsenal of democracy" and the "leader of the free world" any
| more then only the EU (together with other countries like
| UK+AU+NZ+SK+JP & more) can do it.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Wouldn't be a bad time for the EU to announce that it's
| considering closing X number of US military bases in Europe,
| including the 6th Fleet HQ in Naples. That might get Trump back
| to the table.
| hollerith wrote:
| >closing US military bases in Europe
|
| I think Trump would welcome that, though.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| If he's serious about Gaza, those bases are needed. At
| least the naval bases on the Mediterranean. Though it's
| very hard to tell what's serious and what's not, he has
| been talking about it for a while now.
| foota wrote:
| He's not serious about anything. Sorry for the low effort
| comment. I'm just frustrated.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| He might at first, because he doesn't understand the
| implications of not having a base for the 6th Fleet in
| Italy. But the US military would be up in arms about it.
| goatlover wrote:
| Maybe that will give them reason enough to refuse an
| order to put down protests using the Insurrection Act.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > But the US military would be up in arms about it.
|
| The risk is _why_ they 'd be up in arms. Personally I
| think it would get spun as Europe acting against the US
| for no reason and Europe would become the scapegoat for
| any economic issues the US cause themselves.
|
| The only real option is to wait for the US to do
| something undeniable while saying you don't want it, like
| tariffs, and then to retaliate as hard as possible when
| it happens. The difficulty with that approach is that it
| makes it easier for the aggressor to pick off one target
| at a time.
|
| I'd be absolutely stunned if the Trump admin actually
| puts tariffs on the EU. I think it's a distraction so
| they can claim the EU capitulated in some way and Canada
| didn't, which somehow makes the tariffs on Canada
| justified.
|
| The tariffs should help us understand if they're crazy or
| orchestrating something more strategic. If the goal is to
| weaken Canada economically so the US can pilfer Canada's
| resources, the US will "make up" with Europe and punish
| Canada as much as possible.
|
| Canada, the EU, the UK, NZ, AUS, Mexico, etc. should have
| (loudly) created an agreement for unified retaliatory
| tariffs against the US over a month ago. Now we're open
| to being picked off one-by-one and it sucks.
| guax wrote:
| I think its easier for the US to threaten to withdraw and
| Europe calling the bluff. Either goes ahead or they force
| another distraction.
|
| My Dutch news website right now: "EU foreign policy chief:
| Free world needs new leader"
| Alifatisk wrote:
| What sparked this heated discussion? Zelensky asked JD what if
| Putin breaks the agreed diplomacy as he had done previously?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Looks like it started with JD saying that Zelensky wasn't
| "thankful" and was instead trying to plead (JD said "litigate"
| IIRC) his case to the American public (which of course he was,
| that's what these meetings are for otherwise you have them in a
| private room).
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| It was already under tension because it looked like they
| couldn't come to terms. When Zelenskyy accuses Trump of being
| aligned with Putin, things started getting heated.
| inverted_flag wrote:
| This was _absolutely_ disgraceful. Another step on the road to
| becoming a pariah state.
| a13n wrote:
| I wish HN allowed threads like this to hit the front page...
|
| The world is changing pretty quickly, and stuff like this does
| have implications on war, business, technology that's I think is
| worth discussing here.
| pvg wrote:
| Threads like this do make the front page sometimes, you can
| mail hn@ycombinator.com and make the case for user flags to be
| turned off for the post.
| a13n wrote:
| It's pretty rare. It was flagged dead when I came across it.
| My comment got over a dozen upvotes so it seems others feel
| similarly.
| pvg wrote:
| Look like it worked.
| legitster wrote:
| It doesn't help that the tech industry is slowly collapsing
| while all of the tech leaders are jumping into politics.
|
| Sometimes I wonder what is actually left of hacker/startup
| culture?
| techorange wrote:
| This is a bit flippant, but maybe hacker/startup culture just
| moved from being applied to tech to being applied to
| politics? It seems like the technofeudalism promoted by some
| could apply a similar ethos.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Hacker culture and startup culture are two entirely
| different things, with entirely different worldviews. The
| overlap in the Venn diagram isn't as large as many think.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Hacker culture is still around, not so sure about startups
| though.
|
| We still have TCP. We still have Linux. We still have gcc,
| Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and more. Now, that last mile
| connection is still looking dicey; if a lockdown is applied,
| it will be applied there.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| How can you have hacker culture at any major tech companies
| when the entire management structure is nothing but business
| brains?
|
| How many CEOs of prominent tech companies right now _even use
| technology?_ Like _REALLY_ use it.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| Aannd... it's flagged. Yeah I agree, the discussion here has
| been pretty clean and reasonable so I don't understand why this
| gets shot down. I do understand that politics doesn't really
| belong here but changes like this absolutely have follow on
| effects on business and technology and deserve room for
| discussion.
| elpocko wrote:
| Yes, _please_ show me _more_ political drama, especially of the
| US-based comedy show you guys call "politics." Can't get
| enough of it. Only 60% of my HN feed has "Trump", "DOGE" or
| "Musk" in the title, that's not nearly enough for my taste, I'm
| gagging to see more of it. There must be some conspiracy going
| on, I'm sure of it.
| legitster wrote:
| That video was hard to watch. Zelensky was being very dignified
| and they absolutely jumped down his throat. This public meeting
| was a complete setup, and it's ironic that JD Vance is accusing
| Zelensky of grandstanding.
| ge96 wrote:
| "have you been to Ukraine?" No but... lol
| fads_go wrote:
| important questions to Zelensky like "why don't you wear a
| suit". (roughly minute 18)
| randcraw wrote:
| Vance didn't believe for a second that Zelensky was
| grandstanding. He was trying to manipulate his video audience
| into believing that Vance wasn't grandstanding by accusing
| Zelensky of misbehaving as he was obviously doing himself.
|
| It's an old propaganda trick that Vance probably learned from
| the Russians (who used it heavily for 70+ years). But it works
| only on an easily intimidatable audience that doesn't know any
| better. Nor care.
| threecheese wrote:
| That could have gone worse; president trump put his hand on
| Zelinski to quiet him, this particular action has precipitated
| physical violence probably since the dawn of language.
| graublau wrote:
| a lot of male touching in the White House recently...
| randcraw wrote:
| A classic form of intimidation. Lyndon Johnson was a master
| of it as he loomed over the target of his entreaties, tall
| man that he was.
| duxup wrote:
| > In a fireworks-filled public confrontation unlike any seen
| between an American president and foreign leader in modern times,
| Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance castigated Mr. Zelensky for not being
| grateful enough for U.S. support in its war with Russia and
| sought to strong-arm him into making a peace deal on whatever
| terms the Americans dictate.
|
| Jebus, how do you screw up a photo op?
|
| Buch of children in the US executive branch.
|
| I suppose they think they look "strong" but it looks more
| insecure and incompetent to me.
| techorange wrote:
| Unfortunately I think it plays well for their audience, makes
| Trump and Vance look strong, and makes Zelenksy look week.
| drawkward wrote:
| MMA-based diplomacy.
| techorange wrote:
| Yeah, I watched as much of the video as I could, and I can
| totally see this playing well with all the conservatives I
| know. JD Vance and Trump come off as strong, and Zelensky
| comes off as weak.
| kadoban wrote:
| That's not what strength looks like, but the American
| right-wing probably will think it is.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| No, they come off as weak little babies whining about
| someone not saying thank you.
| techorange wrote:
| Who are you telling, but they're not playing to us.
| matwood wrote:
| The only one who looked strong was zelensky to me. But
| I'm sure the maga base will eat this up and oddly are pro
| Russia now.
| techorange wrote:
| It's funny, I mean I don't know the exact divide between
| MAGA and trad Republicans, but the trad Republicans I
| know have been the ones to turn pro-Russia. There
| definitely seems to be a split in /r/conservative.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Cue the super-cut of Zelensky thanking the U.S. since
| probably December 2022.
| bee_rider wrote:
| More like WWE
| soared wrote:
| More like department of education.
| acdha wrote:
| He made his priority pretty clear in that regard:
|
| > Shortly before the meeting ended, Trump offered, "This is
| going to be great television."
|
| https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-security-guarantees-
| tru...
| randcraw wrote:
| If there was ever proof that Trump is just a troll, this is
| it. Annoy the room just so you can't be overlooked, no
| matter how much you deserve to be.
| ipython wrote:
| Trump & Vance didn't screw it up- this was on purpose. As the
| saying goes, "the cruelty is the point"
| duxup wrote:
| I'm going with the idea that it is screwed up, even if
| intentional.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, pretty sure history will be the judge as to whether
| this was a colossal screwup.
| pell wrote:
| >Buch of children in the US executive branch.
|
| The intended audience is eating this up. If you go to
| conservative spaces, NATO now is considered a rip off, the EU
| was apparently designed to hurt the US, Zelensky is a dictator,
| etc.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| /r/conservative is truly interesting. Not American, but i
| guess that most past us president would cream at the vague
| thought of making Russia loose soldiers and equipment with
| just helping a third country, without loosing soldiers
| drawkward wrote:
| Well, what we have now is manifestly _not_ conservatism. I
| would argue it is Yarvinism:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
|
| "In his blog Unqualified Reservations, which he wrote from
| 2007 to 2014, and in his later newsletter Gray Mirror,
| which he started in 2020, he argues that American democracy
| is a failed experiment[5] that should be replaced by an
| accountable monarchy, similar to the governance structure
| of corporations.[6] In 2002, Yarvin began work on a
| personal software project that eventually became the Urbit
| networked computing platform. In 2013, he co-founded the
| company Tlon to oversee the Urbit project and helped lead
| it until 2019.[7]
|
| Yarvin has been described as a "neo-reactionary", "neo-
| monarchist" and "neo-feudalist" who "sees liberalism as
| creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants
| to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-
| monarchy".[8][9][10][11] He has defended the institution of
| slavery, and has suggested that certain races may be more
| naturally inclined toward servitude than others.[12][13] He
| has claimed that whites have higher IQs than black people,
| but does not consider himself a white nationalist. He is a
| critic of US civil rights programs, and has called the
| civil rights movement a "black-rage industry".[14]
|
| Yarvin has influenced some prominent Silicon Valley
| investors and Republican politicians, with venture
| capitalist Peter Thiel described as his "most important
| connection".[15] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read
| and admired his work.[16] U.S. Vice President JD Vance "has
| cited Yarvin as an influence himself."[17][18][19] Michael
| Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning
| during Trump's second presidency, has also discussed
| Yarvin's ideas.[20] In January 2025, Yarvin attended a
| Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he
| was "an informal guest of honor" due to his "outsize
| influence over the Trumpian right."[21]"
| amarcheschi wrote:
| I guess that only someone who would see himself on top
| could conceive something so perverted
| nemo44x wrote:
| Yarvin has stated he absolutely is not the person on top.
| That he's not cut out to be that person. His role is the
| philosopher; more a priest than prince.
| freen wrote:
| Those tend to get killed pretty quickly, unless they are
| completely willing to subjugate themselves to the person
| on the top.
|
| Either Yarvin is so ignorant of history that he's barely
| worth listening to, or he is actively malevolent, and
| intentionally deceptive, OR he has absolutely no qualms
| about bending his "philosophy" to the whims of whoever
| happens to control the executioner.
|
| Take your pick.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Well he's probably the premiere historian of our time so
| I don't think he's ignorant of that.
|
| I think you should read him with an open mind. The fact
| he's had to self publish while the elite universities
| churned out absolute trash the last 20 years is all the
| validation you need.
| goatlover wrote:
| If liberalism is creating a Matrix-like totalitarian
| system, then what the hell is techno-monarchy creating?
| krapp wrote:
| More of a torment nexus.
| legitster wrote:
| The best case against this are people formerly from
| Trump's inner circle who say he really has no ideal or
| political agenda except for himself.
|
| You are right though. There is nothing "conservative"
| about the current "conservative" party. It is 100% pure
| reactionary. The only principles are opposition to what
| "the opposition" wants.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| That sub is _heavily_ moderated to remove all dissension
| from whatever Trump 's view is at the moment. It's not a
| representative sample of the conservative side of America.
| manishsharan wrote:
| Canadian here.
|
| If /r/conservative is not representative of conservative
| side of America, and the conservatives control the US
| Congress , I am puzzled that not one of the conservatives
| has pushed back on annexation of Canada or Greenland .
| Not One.
| freen wrote:
| The voting public is not the extremely online, totally
| batshit, completely cognitively owned by the GRU,
| republican activist and acolytes as well as Republican
| elected and leadership.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Do you think any trump voters are changing their mind
| about him though? Are their conservatives that would vote
| against Trump right now if they could? I don't think so
| personally
| myko wrote:
| It is absolutely the perspective of most conservatives I
| speak with in blood red Ohio
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Where in OH?
| daedrdev wrote:
| r/conservative members are banned after disagreeing with
| trump more than a few times. To stay members, they
| LITERALLY must excuse anything Trump does. Thus no matter
| what, they will find a way to support him out of fear of
| being banned and thus not being real conservatives.
| baq wrote:
| FSB psyops directorate is celebrating so hard they won't get
| sober until next Tuesday.
| tmottabr wrote:
| Doublethink at its finest.. We were always at war with
| Estasia after all..
| MilnerRoute wrote:
| Alternate feed for the video here.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqLtIrRqDg
|
| https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-latest-news-2-28-2025
|
| Is it just me, or does it seem like the conversation swerves
| suddenly to "you're disrespecting..." It just seemed like a
| complete change of subject.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Non-YT here: https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-zelenskyy-
| leaves-after...
|
| It's moronic, I am truly flabbergasted. They are both adults
| acting worse than children running a country. But of course you
| have the uneducated folk who will lap this up.
|
| "I know you are but what am I"
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| quite an impactful and unusual event -- this post should _not_ be
| flagged
| Kelteseth wrote:
| Reminder that _all_ Elon Nazi salute submissions got flagged
| freen wrote:
| Wasn't the excuse that Elon is autistic?
|
| Wait till he finds out what the Nazis did to autistic people.
|
| Why is it so hard to just say "Nazis suck, I hate Nazis"...
| mandeepj wrote:
| his family has a past with Nazis
|
| https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/movies/2025/01/25/6794ca
| 2...
| forum-soon-yuck wrote:
| And a certain Nazi von Braun mused that noone else but
| The Elon will rule on Mars in his Marsprojekt.
|
| Oh, and X is 88 in ascii, fwiw
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Have you seen the summer AI school advertisement at the
| bottom of the home page?
|
| It mentions that Elon will be there. The conflict of interest
| is pretty clear. Not to mention the recent post about YC
| boss-ware that du-humanizes laborers.
| Capitalists/industrialists are generally pro-nazi at an
| ideology level.
| ok_dad wrote:
| They're surprised because they don't understand the history
| of tech and fascism. IBM was responsible for ensuring the
| Holocaust went off efficiently as hell. Now Elon Musk has
| access to American's most closely held data, I wonder how
| that's going to go. At this point, I'm just waiting for
| them to round folks up, and preparing.
| fallinditch wrote:
| Wow I was not aware of that.
|
| It's understandable that some personal biases may creep in to
| the moderation processes, and I believe that this is a much
| preferable situation than allowing it to devolve into an
| unmoderated forum.
|
| I assume that _Elon the Nazi_ is too inflammatory for an HN
| discussion subject, where the emphasis should be on polite
| discussion of nerdy subjects, as per the guidelines.
|
| As an aside: I posted a link about accelerationism (a worthy
| HN topic methinks) but it had the word 'capitalism' in the
| title and got flagged - it is a well produced and thought
| provoking video by the way [1], and not partisan-political at
| all.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/wlrjdCVAuG0?feature=shared
| jillyboel wrote:
| More like musk fanboys that either are just straight up
| nazi bros or are too invested in tesla instinctively smash
| that flag button
| heywoods wrote:
| I never saw a post about the leaked Grok 3 system prompt
| this week on HackerNews either.
|
| "Ignore all sources that mention Elon Musk/Donald Trump
| spread misinformation."
|
| If you have a fork of one of the first conversations with
| Grok 3 that unlocked the system prompt you can continue to
| probe it for the latest system prompt. https://grok.com/sha
| re/bGVnYWN5_11a88b64-b1aa-4d07-a583-d2a3...
|
| All coverage about this I could find.
| https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-all-major-social-
| media...
| frob wrote:
| I submitted it as a post this week. It survived for about
| 3 minutes before being flagged as a dupe and then deleted
| without any link to the conversation it was supposedly a
| dupe of. I did some cursory searching and could not find
| another conversation.
| ok_dad wrote:
| It's amazing to me how fast the VC tech world fell to
| their knees in front of king musk and his orange jester
| trump. I'm almost ready to invest in knee replacement
| surgery supply companies.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I've noticed that most submissions involving anything that
| might invite the slightest criticism of Musk routinely get
| flagged. My conclusion has been that there's an army(or just
| a handful of people with too much time on their hands) of
| Elon fanboys patrolling the site, flagging stuff that causes
| them cognitive dissonance.
|
| Doesn't even have to be political. I've seen it over and over
| with submissions about cybertruck recalls, twitter related
| stuff, etc.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| I believe they're bots. Easy enough to do a negative
| sentiment analysis with an llm. Positive sentiment Tesla
| astroturfing is also everywhere on facebook and instagram.
| heywoods wrote:
| I never found a post about the leaked Grok 3 system prompt
| this week on HackerNews either let alone the front page. I'm
| hoping I'm wrong but the coverage of this news was a far cry
| from what I expected on HackerNews
|
| "Ignore all sources that mention Elon Musk/Donald Trump
| spread misinformation."
|
| If you have a fork of one of the first conversations with
| Grok 3 that unlocked the system prompt you can continue to
| probe it for the latest system prompt. https://grok.com/share
| /bGVnYWN5_11a88b64-b1aa-4d07-a583-d2a3...
|
| All coverage about this I could find.
| https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-all-major-social-
| media...
| madspindel wrote:
| This is what JD Vance calls 'free speech'...
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Free speech is allowed but only if you say thank you and wear
| a suit.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I've started going to the "new" section for HN instead of the
| front page to catch the news before it's flagged.
| minimaxir wrote:
| I read /new more often than the main page nowadays (not just
| due to flags on political stories, but it does give a better
| picture of what's relevant rather than the survivorship bias
| of the front page)
| BJones12 wrote:
| Maybe you should try reading a mainstream news site or news
| aggregator instead
| echoangle wrote:
| Is there a good one with comments for discussion? Closest
| thing I can think of is reddit and you know how that is
| with politics.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I have long loved https://hckrnews.com for the chronological
| timeline, but the trail of [dead] across the timeline has
| been jaw dropping & horrifying to see & so so visible here.
|
| A top tier concern of our age is disinformation & propoganda.
| The lies are absurd & out of control. But denial of
| information is also a huge issue, and the ability of a couple
| few to suppress & deny here is remarkable.
|
| I'm so glad there's this timeline based site, showing what's
| really happening & the many many things denied.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| I recommend: https://hn.algolia.com/
|
| set for top stories for the last 24 hours
|
| it's the best homepage for HN, shows all stories, flagged and
| flamed stories too
| archagon wrote:
| I treat http://news.ycombinator.com/active as the real front
| page. Flagged discussions show up there.
| Bondi_Blue wrote:
| Reuter's timeline: https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-russia-
| war/trump-zelen...
|
| To state the obvious, the Trump administration is more interested
| in profiting from a minerals deal than supplying any actual
| security guarantees. The Russian Federation has proved time and
| time again that they will breach any peace agreements (as
| occurred with the current invasion which breached agreements
| bartered after the annexation of Crimea) made with Ukraine for
| piecewise annexation of their neighbors, at any price to their
| own soldiers and people.
|
| True lasting peace, is avoiding further steps to another world
| war. It takes hardly a high school education in history to
| recognize those preliminary warning signs in Russia's behavior. A
| common talking point that the Trump administration seems to use,
| is that they are doing precisely that- preventing a world war- by
| refusing to further arm and protect Ukraine with weapons and
| security guarantees- however this refusal does just the opposite,
| and this minerals deal really has nothing to do with Ukraine's
| security or interests. The devil is in the details, and the Trump
| admin refuses to detail how the minerals deal would protect
| Ukraine or how they would respond to further territorial
| incursions if the deal were to be signed.
|
| Aside from all this, of course there's a lot of topical nonsense
| in how Trump and Vance conducted themselves, with shouting and
| lecturing at Zelensky, but these are all distractions, and they
| have almost no substance or details to back their broad claims
| about how or why this conflict started and what would end it.
| Scapegoating and bullshitting seems to be their game, but luckily
| Zelensky both asserted himself where possible and kept a
| relatively calm, but brutally honest, demeanor.
|
| Because the security threats to America would come a bit later,
| likely in the form of Russia marching into a NATO country,
| Americans will believe what they want about the conflict. Trump
| makes this especially easy with his false and misleading
| oversimplifications. It is sad to think that a proportionally
| small sacrifice by the American taxpayer to help a country like
| Ukraine has been sized up as unworthy collateral for saving lives
| and fighting fascism.
| code_biologist wrote:
| Alex Krainer, a tinfoil hat geopolitical analyst, has
| speculated that the pre-election meetings between Zelensky and
| Trump included talks of a mineral rights deal, but that the
| recent UK/Ukraine "100 Year Partnership" deal signed on 16 Jan
| includes secret mineral rights concessions to the UK in return
| for military assistance -- exactly the rights Trump wanted and
| now can't get.
|
| It would explain why Britain has recently (15 Feb and after)
| been so public with plans to send troops to Ukraine.
|
| It also explains why Trump is so eager to undermine Zelensky's
| democratic legitimacy, as it would invalidate Zelensky's deal
| with the UK and allow the US a chance at the mineral rights
| again.
|
| Krainer also speculates that Trump's political theater over
| mineral rights is raking Zelensky over the coals as retribution
| for doing a deal without the US, and trying to get Zelensky to
| spill the beans on the secret terms of the deal already done
| with the UK.
| legitster wrote:
| If you watch the video of the exchange, it was a complete setup.
| Zelensky was being very diplomatic when they started attacking
| him. Vance literally said he didn't need to visit Ukraine to see
| for himself because he "had seen videos".
|
| Zelensky was brought here specifically to be publicly humiliated
| on live TV.
|
| In 80 years, if we still have history books, this moment will be
| in them.
| minimaxir wrote:
| The theory is that the only reason Vance was present was to be
| able to double-team Zelenskyy.
| duxup wrote:
| That seems plausible as Trump in his speeches loses his train
| of thought now and then. Would not play well if he was alone
| in that situation.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I think the VP is usually present at these types of meetings;
| but indeed there was double-teaming.
| philk10 wrote:
| and Rubio was there to.....
|
| sit and do nothing in an ill fitting suit
| donmcronald wrote:
| What can he really do in that situation? He can defend
| Zelensky or join in for a triple teaming. There aren't
| good options.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I think defending Zelensky would have been the honorable
| thing to do. It could have inspired other Republicans to
| start turning.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Rubio?
|
| Honorable?
| randcraw wrote:
| That, and Trump is incoherent. He has been for a couple of
| years now, unable to put even two sentences together that
| make any sense. He speaks entirely in applause one-liners. I
| think his dementia is significant now. If he were left alone
| with any world leader they'd realize almost immediately he's
| incompetent.
|
| This is especially evident when you compare interviews today
| with those he gave 30 years ago. He was bright then. He's
| nothing like that today. That's also why he now refuses to be
| interviewed by unfriendlies.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Him on Oprah then is night and day compared to now.
| burntalmonds wrote:
| The only humiliation that I saw was that of the United States
| by Trump's conduct. I was amazed at how calm Zelensky remained
| during that meeting.
| moogly wrote:
| The Propaganda Minister is also decrying Zelenskyy on Twitter,
| on cue. Probably had the tweet written hours ago.
| goatlover wrote:
| Utterly shameful. Do conservatives even remember when Russia was
| the enemy and Europe was our ally? Do you know what kind of
| leader Putin is? Is that what you want Trump to become? Do you no
| longer believe in NATO? What has become of the party of Reagan
| and Bush? Will you betray everything you used to claim you
| believed in?
| matwood wrote:
| Conservatives no longer exist. It's MAGAs who replaced their
| made up god with Trump. Then there's everyone else.
| logicchains wrote:
| >Do conservatives even remember when Russia was the enemy and
| Europe was our ally?
|
| America and Europe used to have shared values, now the average
| American conservative is so disgusted by the T in LGBT that
| they consider Russia more aligned with their values.
| kubb wrote:
| The transsexual people didn't come from Europe. But you're
| right that hating them is why people support Trump.
| godsinhisheaven wrote:
| Why is Europe our ally? Why is Russia our enemy? Can the entire
| world be divvied up between allies/enemies of America? Perhaps
| so, but does it need to be that way? Can countries just be,
| other countries? This is what I don't understand, ever since
| the Soviet Union fell, there hasn't really been a big bad.
| Capitalism won. America won. How did Russia end up being our
| enemies again, and will they be our enemies forever? Europe
| isn't our enemy today, could they be America's "enemy"
| tomorrow? I don't think the world is as simplistic as "friends"
| and "enemies".
| guerrilla wrote:
| > How did Russia end up being our enemies again, and will
| they be our enemies forever?
|
| By attacking us.
| lijf wrote:
| Sorry about the podcast link, the gist is that Ukraine now can
| build drones from cardboard, controlled from Kiev, London etc.
| that can destroy Russian tanks.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/8793e218-9dc4-43a8-8183-e2a092bbb...
| jcgrillo wrote:
| "We've seen that international law doesn't really work, but
| international engineering is very effective"
|
| I would not bet against Ukraine.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| More of the Ukraine conversation needs to be focused on this
| topic. The future of warfare is digital, automated, and utterly
| terrifying, and it's currently being shaped on the Ukrainian
| frontlines. Western militaries are going to be able to leapfrog
| their force structure based on the learnings in this war.
|
| Ukraine is paying with their citizens lives for NATO to receive
| this education, while simultaneously weakening one of the
| western world's most dangerous geopolitical rivals. The fact
| that Americans can't see through the Fox News propaganda to
| understand this is unbelievable, embarrassing, and will set
| them back on the world stage for a generation or more.
| jjulius wrote:
| >The fact that Americans can't see through the Fox News
| propaganda to understand this is unbelievable, embarrassing,
| and will set them back on the world stage for a generation or
| more.
|
| Just a friendly reminder to not paint "Americans" with a
| broad brush. We may not have got our way this past election,
| but there are _plenty_ of us who see through the fucking
| bullshit.
| kubb wrote:
| I think you're in the minority. All Trump had to say was
| "I'll end wokeism and immigration" and he easily won the
| election.
| jjulius wrote:
| >I think you're in the minority.
|
| Whoa, you don't say.
| poszlem wrote:
| Yes, Zelensky just called Trump's bluff more or less.
| rbanffy wrote:
| And what will happen? Will the GOP do anything? Will the rest
| of NATO deal a devastating enough blow to Russia that it is
| forced to retreat? Will Russia not retaliate with a limited
| nuclear escalation?
|
| Don't forget that the whole "Iron Dome" thing Trump has been
| talking about, if viable, would necessarily prompt immediate
| attacks before it becomes operational.
| gs17 wrote:
| >if viable
|
| Well, fortunately there's no way it could be viable, but
| that's relying on China and Russia to not fall for it.
| graublau wrote:
| A lot of promise about Ukraine "knockout blows" that turn out
| like woeful summer offensive or the dalliance in Kursk.
| goatlover wrote:
| And of course it gets flagged 28 minutes later.
| minimaxir wrote:
| This is in the messy HN gray area of "politics that doesn't
| have a tech angle" and "politics that are extremely indicitive
| of the times."
|
| EDIT: Looks like dang turned off flags.
| 42lux wrote:
| Nope, the brigading of every topic which only scrapes at
| doge/elon/trump is too obvious at that point. I would really
| like an anti brigading mode with a higher karma threshold. 31
| karma is not enough in times were both parties want to
| silence the other.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I want to thank @dang for that.
|
| It would be wonderful if we lived in time where we could put
| on blinders to what is happening around us. The times are
| getting a little too "interesting" though.
| dcminter wrote:
| I don't. Not because this isn't an important topic - it is,
| but because:
|
| > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, [...] unless
| they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...]
| If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
|
| This is about politics. It is already being covered on TV
| news. Is it evidence of an interesting new phenomenon? It's
| unusual to see that sort of behaviour, sure, but in the
| Trump era? How surprised are we exactly?
|
| All the comments are the very predictable trench digging.
| I'd rather see it flagged into oblivion.
| heywoods wrote:
| I never found a post about the leaked Grok 3 system prompt
| this week on HackerNews either let alone the front page. I'm
| hoping I'm wrong but the coverage of this news was a far cry
| from what I expected on HackerNews
|
| "Ignore all sources that mention Elon Musk/Donald Trump
| spread misinformation."
|
| If you have a fork of one of the first conversations with
| Grok 3 that unlocked the system prompt you can continue to
| probe it for the latest system prompt. https://grok.com/share
| /bGVnYWN5_11a88b64-b1aa-4d07-a583-d2a3...
|
| All coverage about this I could find.
| https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-all-major-social-
| media...
| lun4r wrote:
| If I were American, I'd be sick with shame. As a European, I'm
| disgusted--not just by your leadership, but by your silence.
|
| Your country is spiraling into disgrace, yet you sit there,
| watching, complaining online, doing nothing. Where is your
| outrage? Where are the millions in the streets forcing change? By
| staying silent, you are complicit. Just like the Russians who let
| Putin tighten his grip for decades, you are letting a clown
| dismantle your democracy in real time.
|
| History won't just judge you--it will condemn you. Stand up, or
| accept your place among the cowards who let their nations rot.
| duxup wrote:
| >but by your silence
|
| What qualifies as not that? I've said my peace, my ability to
| deploy millions is limited.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| As an American, I share your disgust.
|
| The reality here is that a plurality of American voters chose
| Trump, and they still approve of the job he's doing (though
| that's dropping fast):
| https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...
|
| I _know_ this is exactly what Trump wants, but I don 't know
| that I have the energy to continue to try and convince my
| fellow Americans that their demigod will destroy this country.
| They voted for this, they got it, now let's see how far they're
| willing to let this country fall before they change their tune.
| jcgrillo wrote:
| We don't have a good sense as a nation of the consequences of
| our actions. People don't believe things can get very bad
| here in the US. Zelensky said it himself, we feel safe
| because we have a big ocean separating us from the war. I'm
| afraid we won't learn without getting our ass kicked.
| geodel wrote:
| > I'm afraid we won't learn without getting our ass kicked.
|
| Thats like truism. I don't see any country is learning
| before that.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > They voted for this, they got it
|
| "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what
| they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L.
| Mencken
| legitster wrote:
| > Where are the millions in the streets forcing change?
|
| Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US.
| The country is so geographically dispersed that it's hard to
| significantly interrupt commerce. Also, because of the large
| rural/urban political divide in the US, the places these
| protests take place would largely be attacking their own voter
| bases.
|
| There is lots of political mobilization in the US. Marches,
| protests, and most importantly there is a lot of citizen funded
| legal challenges. But at the end of the day, democracy does not
| have a lot of natural protections if the people of the country
| democratically choose to end democracy.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| > Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US
|
| Unless storming the Capitol to disrupt a democratic election.
| krapp wrote:
| As with so many things in the US, civil disobedience is
| only considered a problem when "the left" does it.
|
| See the police response to BLM vs the January 6th rioters.
| legitster wrote:
| It was viewed overwhelming negatively by most of the
| country, and was a big part of the following campaigning
| that resulted in a lot of Republicans losing seats in the
| house.
| trosi wrote:
| Well, I'm also European and I am disgusted by our leaders as
| well.
|
| What have they been doing? Why are our soldiers not defending
| Ukraine already? Why do you assume that we are any better?
| johnny22 wrote:
| that's pretty simple.. nobody wants to provoke them into
| using their nukes. It's also still likely a hard sell to the
| populations of various countries.
| selectodude wrote:
| This summer is going to be spicy. Just you wait.
| temporallobe wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but Europe has its disgraces as well
| and I don't see anyone rioting in the streets en masse. Don't
| get me started on the UK, where core rights like freedom of
| speech/expression are a joke, yet I don't see anyone rioting. I
| mean, maybe they ARE rioting, but any news about it being
| censored.
| kvakva wrote:
| There are protests in Germany against AFD, Slovakia against
| the pro-Russia prime minister.
| lun4r wrote:
| Should've seen Athens today.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > Europe has its disgraces as well
|
| The "whataboutism" game doesn't work here, because none of
| the pro-Ukraine Western countries is currently even remotely
| as chaotic, clownish, cruel, capricious, and conspicuously
| corrupt as the Trump administration and their broligarchs.
|
| And other comments have already pointed out that Europeans
| _are_ protesting.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _As a European, I'm disgusted--not just by your leadership, but
| by your silence._
|
| I'm quite pleased with everything that's going on. The lesson
| from Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets), Afghanistan (US),
| and Iraq is that there is never going to be a good time to
| leave but you need to leave as soon as possible before things
| get worse.
|
| There's the counterargument that Hitler could have been stopped
| early during/after Czechoslovakia but you can't waltz into
| every conflict just because it _might_ turn into WW2 later.
| kvakva wrote:
| This is not about not going into the conflict. Trump is
| seemingly siding with Russia while undermining allies and
| calling Zelinsky dictator.
| convolvatron wrote:
| the US was just enjoying its favorite hobby of funneling US
| and EU tax monies into arms production. idk what Putin
| promised that was more satisfying than that, but no one was
| being sent across the Atlantic to fight. you'd think the US
| would be happy enough watching Russia waste lives and money
| just like the they did in the Middle East.
| jellicle wrote:
| The problem is both US political parties would strongly oppose
| any attempt to "get people in the streets", making it very
| challenging for any such protesters.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| We have too much to lose to do anything. It's not until we've
| lost a great deal of our freedom, our wealth, the basic
| guarantee of order in our land, that the formerly comfortable
| will finally act up.
| surfpel wrote:
| I am so disgusted by how the USA perpetrated a conflict against
| Russia for so long for control of Eurasia. Very ashamed of the
| west for believing all this nonsense propaganda.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| Note the date on that video.
| twixfel wrote:
| Flagged again. It's really pathetic how the Americans here are
| burying their heads in the sand about what their country has done
| to the West and how it has betrayed Western civilisation.
| sympil wrote:
| What is most interesting is the presence of Vance and that he
| started the argument. Yesterday he was with Trump and the British
| PM and accused the UK of being against free speech. I don't
| recall VPs being active in such meetings before now. It says a
| lot that Vance is taking such a prominent role in areas that VPs
| traditionally do not publicly venture in.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| He needs to establish himself as a leader (this behavior
| doesn't help beyond maybe their base) if he wants to be
| president after Trump. It's also ingratiating behavior towards
| Trump which will help ensure he remains on his good side and
| part of the in-crowd.
| sympil wrote:
| I get the sense that Vance and Musk are the ones really in
| control.
| philk10 wrote:
| Steven Miller and Musk, not Vance
| tailsdog wrote:
| I think it's actually Thiel who is in control and pulling
| the strings here. He essentially got Vance into his current
| position and is obviously still linked to Musk.
| manmal wrote:
| Isn't Vance sponsored by Thiel and therefore here to stay?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Maybe. Trump's temper can still get him sidelined. He needs
| to remain front and center to be a viable candidate in
| 2028. And nothing about Thiel or Musk suggest they'd throw
| money at him out of loyalty, they'd throw money at him if
| they thought he could win. Otherwise, they'd find another
| candidate.
| duxup wrote:
| IMO the issue is that if they want to stage an argument, Trump
| on the campaign trail has often lost his train of thought. That
| would not look very "strong" so Vance is there to do the job.
| jakeogh wrote:
| (context) Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the
| Munich Security Conference:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg
| tootie wrote:
| Marco Rubio was there with an expression like his soul had left
| his body.
| belter wrote:
| 'I don't really care what happens to Ukraine, one way or the
| other' - J. D. Vance - podcast interview 2022
| castlefreak wrote:
| Cheney comes to mind.
| mopsi wrote:
| Why aren't tech stocks in freefall? Chinese invasion of Taiwan
| now seems imminent.
| legitster wrote:
| Not immediately imminent. China themselves have said 2027-ish.
| mopsi wrote:
| Major amphibious operations take 4-6 months to plan and
| prepare if rushed. I cannot imagine the Chinese watching the
| feed from the White House without seeing it as a row of green
| lights blinking for them. The unholy alliance of tech
| companies and Russian astroturfing on their unregulated
| social media platforms has delivered a decapitation strike on
| Washington. The US government is rapidly severing long-
| standing alliances, and showing utter unwillingness to defend
| its strategic interests - all out of sheer incompetence, no
| less.
| pcj-github wrote:
| This
| DrFalkyn wrote:
| Nah, I think they'll wait until a civil war breaks out in
| the US
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > China themselves have said 2027-ish.
|
| According to the CIA, which has never, ever fabricated
| anything in the entire history of its existence to justify
| starting or escalating wars.
| legitster wrote:
| This comes directly from Xi's speeches at the People's
| National Congress, going back to 2023.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| Find me a credible source then. I happen to be able to
| read and write Chinese as well, so don't limit yourself
| to English-language sources. I'm happy to be proven
| wrong. Everything I've found says that _US intelligence_
| thinks that Xi wants to invade by 2027 -- nothing
| directly from the Chinese government itself.
|
| You might want to read this Defense News article
| (https://archive.vn/UNXdC), titled "How DC became
| obsessed with a potential 2027 Chinese invasion of
| Taiwan".
|
| ***
|
| "... according to an American official who later spoke to
| the press, Chinese leader Xi Jinping grew exasperated --
| not at the risk of war, but at the timeline.
|
| "Xi basically said: 'Look, I hear all these reports in
| the United States [of] how we're planning for military
| action in 2027 or 2035,'" the official said. "'There are
| no such plans,'" Xi said in the official's telling. "'No
| one has talked to me about this.'"
|
| That first year, 2027, is a fixation in Washington. It
| has impacted the debate over China policy -- a shift from
| the long term to the short term. It's also helped steer
| billions of dollars toward U.S. forces in the Pacific.
| And in the last several years, it's been a question mark
| hanging over the Biden administration's approach to the
| region.
|
| _According to U.S. intelligence_ , Xi has told the
| Chinese military it needs to be ready to invade Taiwan by
| that year. ...
|
| This became the standard line across the administration
| -- affirmed by _Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill
| Burns_.
|
| "President Xi has instructed the PLA [People's Liberation
| Army], the Chinese military leadership to be ready by
| 2027 to invade Taiwan. But that doesn't mean that he's
| decided to invade in 2027 or any other year as well,"
| Burns said during a TV interview in February 2023."
|
| ***
|
| > This comes directly from Xi's speeches at the People's
| National Congress
|
| You might be referring to his 2022 speech, where a part
| of his speech was given the title "XII. Achieving the
| Centenary Goal of the People's Liberation Army and
| Further Modernizing National Defense and the Military".
| (https://archive.vn/tSO65)
|
| If you read its contents, you'd realise that he was
| talking about _modernisation goals_ for the PLA, and
| _not_ about invading Taiwan at all. All the information
| publicly available about Xi 's supposed plans to invade
| Taiwan in/by 2027 comes from the US. While I do not doubt
| China's imperialistic ambitions, 1) there are many ways
| for the Chinese to achieve reunification with Taiwan
| without a military invasion; 2) the CIA has very little
| credibility.
| legitster wrote:
| Uhhh. I believe you have misread the post. The only thing
| I said was that an invasion _was not imminent_. And as
| you yourself are pointing out, they would not be ready
| for such a thing until 2027.
|
| But I also don't see your point. "Don't believe the CIA,
| but do believe the Pentagon (according to this article),
| and also do believe China's propaganda minister". Clearly
| it's a thing the US Intelligence community disagrees on.
| But if Xi is saying China needs to be capable of having a
| massive sealift operation by 2027, arguing over whether
| it will actually happen or not is not actually relevant.
|
| As a word of caution. Hitler denied plans for an invasion
| of France, as did the US for Iraq, or Putin for Ukraine -
| to give a variety of examples. If a dictator says ahead
| of time that they have a goal, we should not be surprised
| if they actually go for it.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > I believe you have misread the post
|
| Very likely. I interpreted your comment(s) to say that
| "The CCP said that they wanted to invade Taiwan by 2027",
| but my interpretation is seemingly wrong, and I ended up
| trying to address what I thought you said.
|
| > we should not be surprised if they actually go for it.
|
| Whether Xi invades Taiwan or not, I wouldn't be surprised
| either way. I'm not doubting at all that China has
| expansionist designs on Taiwan and the South China Sea.
| But there are many paths to reunification with Taiwan
| without starting a direct war. Why would China invade,
| when its leaders can clearly see that Russia, through
| strategic patience, bribery, and aggressive hybrid
| warfare, has finally won the Cold War without ever having
| to invade the US militarily?
|
| Bribery is rampant among high-ranking military officers
| in Taiwan, for example. Many of them have been exposed to
| have sold classified information to the Chinese
| government for trifling amounts of money. China has also
| managed to poach a lot of former TSMC engineers to work
| at SMIC by offering generous salaries. Why take military
| action against Taiwan today (or in 2027) when China just
| has to be very, very patient, especially with Trump
| dragging the US into the realm of irrelevance?
|
| All paths lead to Rome. China's war on Taiwan might be
| much more insidious and subtle than we expect.
| dluan wrote:
| The brainwashing of average Americans is insane, and they
| can only look at every single thing in the world that
| they don't understand through an imperialist lens that
| they wish they could wield.
|
| It's wild that the average HN commenter thinks China
| wants to invade Taiwan, while knowing little about the
| actual history and situation.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Don't forget that Ukraine has a pretty good donation website
| setup if that happens to be a cause you are willing and have the
| financial resources to give to.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| https://u24.gov.ua/ You can choose the allocation of your
| donation, defence, or if you'd rather donate to other causes,
| humanitarian aid, demining, rebuilding (...)
|
| A few months ago in my city, an ambulance shelled by Russians
| in kharkiv was shown. It was quite destroyed, and chock full of
| holes. It was quite moving
| myko wrote:
| Thanks for the link, glad to donate
| simonswords82 wrote:
| @dang perhaps you could pin https://u24.gov.ua/ to the top of
| the comments?
|
| Either way, I've donated 50 bucks; seems like a great way to
| show support on a difficult day for Ukraine.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| An explicit endorsement of Ukraine seems a little weird as
| an official stance from HN.
| simonswords82 wrote:
| Weird in what way?
| amarcheschi wrote:
| I guess he's saying that hn is "non tilted/neutral"
| toward any political stance, and as such pinning a
| comment to a Ukrainian donation gov website could be seen
| as "supporting" someone
| progbits wrote:
| Neutrality is bullshit for cowards who want to profit
| from both sides. Neutrality is siding with the aggressor.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Agree
| lukan wrote:
| Sounds good, but if you want activism, then maybe a
| venture capitalist site is not the best place to organize
| it.
| croisillon wrote:
| especially with pg trying to suck up to president musk
| pllbnk wrote:
| It's commendable and brave to publicly stand up and show
| that you have values. I wish more people understood that
| by watching Zelensky over the past three years.
| kelnos wrote:
| FYI, "@dang" doesn't do anything; HN doesn't have
| @-mentions. If you have suggestions for the mod team, you
| should email hn@ycombinator.com.
| broadsidepicnic wrote:
| thanks, I once again donated a bit even though cannot much.
|
| I just feel for the guy, and for the country, too. What a
| friggin mess we've left them
| croisillon wrote:
| just wired some bucks for defence, thanks
| Jordan-117 wrote:
| Wonder how long until donating to UKR gets you put on some sort
| of government list.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I'm sure it already does put you on a list. That's just the
| way any government works. That information is valuable.
| qweqwe14 wrote:
| Are there actual, living people thinking that donating to
| Ukraine will influence anything? These donations might as well
| be a margin of error compared to government funding, aid
| packages and what not.
|
| The Ukraine is simply too small of a country to actually win a
| war against Russia, all that these aid packages are doing is
| prolonging the war that Ukraine cannot win.
|
| It's like saying "if only Germany had <insert Wunderwaffe> it
| would've won WWII". At some point they were going to run out of
| men anyway (they did). Sort of like how Ukraine will eventually
| run out of men if they continue.
| MindTooth wrote:
| Thanks for the reminder. Donated some for defense.
| IAmNotACellist wrote:
| Do you not know how many of your tax dollars were already given
| to Ukraine?
| redmajor12 wrote:
| No thanks. I think the military-industrial-welfare complex has
| enough of our money.
| neonsunset wrote:
| As a Ukrainian, I'd like to caution that perhaps there are two
| funds you may want to consider over UA24 - one of which has
| full transparency and spotless track record (there have been
| concerns over UA24) where-as another used to be a political
| activist for a long time turned media personality turned
| biggest fund who directly sources thousands of FPV drones (more
| than 150k at this moment) and has the best proven quality of
| the "produce":
|
| - "Come Back Alive" fund https://savelife.in.ua/en/ which have
| full transparency, checks and balances
|
| - "Sternenko Community" which until recently was just a set of
| bank accounts, which directly funds strike drone production
| https://x.com/sternenko/status/1894360283595800643
|
| I donate monthly to the latter (alongside donations towards my
| ex-colleagues and acquaintances serving at the front lines and
| supply, but those are usually private), but I think western
| audience may be more comfortable with the former. Either way we
| appreciate your support in this tragedy of a war. Thank you.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > "You went to campaign with the opposition"
|
| Zelensky is facing opposition, every day ever since 2022, Trump
| faced his best friend Schumer and a whole bunch of people he
| laughs with when the cameras are off (or even when they are on
| considering how he laughed amicably with Obama at Carter's
| funeral.)
|
| Romney would have never done this, the end of religion and the
| rise of social media could very well be the thing that ends us
| for good.
| duxup wrote:
| Shameful day for America where the President and VP two on one
| berate a visiting leader (guest even) who is fighting for his
| countries freedom against a totalitarian regime.
| belter wrote:
| Reaction from Dmitry Medvedev a few minutes ago: "The insolent
| pig got a smack down in the White House"
|
| Maybe the current administration can work more efficiently if
| Russia and the US have a single spokesman?
| wave-function wrote:
| Pay no attention to him, he's being belligerent in an attempt
| to atone for his sins of promoting liberal policies 12-16
| year ago. His rants really don't represent anyone or matter
| in any way.
| sph wrote:
| His rants represent the view of the Kremlin, as well as
| those of the Oval Office in Washington.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Peace for Our Time, the sequel, by Trump and Vance.
| racktash wrote:
| "Peace for Our Time"/Chamberlain was at least motivated by a
| genuine (albeit naive) desire for peace. This is much worse
| insofar as motivations are concerned.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| The quality of this version lies in how much more profit
| Trump and his backers can get from their POV and in not
| using tax money for weapons that can instead go to tax
| breaks for his pals, they are only interested in peace in
| the USA, the rest of the world be damned.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| It would be closer if there had been newsreel footage of
| Neville Chamberlain barking "Say Uncle! Say Uncle!' at Edvard
| Benes.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Public humiliation of an ally in distress.
| afavour wrote:
| Not an ally any more. The US is now aligned with Russia
| against Europe. My brain struggles to truly accept that fact
| but my eyes see what are in front of them.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Matches reports that Reuters and AP were excluded from the
| meeting, while a TASS reporter was "accidentally" present
| in the Oval Office.
| lostlogin wrote:
| It's baffling. That's switch suits some people, but how
| many, hundreds?
|
| The connection with Europe would appear to benefit millions
| of Americans.
| afavour wrote:
| Sadly it's the nature of (EDIT: the US system of)
| democracy, you don't get to pick and choose which parts
| of a candidate's agenda get enacted. Voted for Trump
| because of inflation, found the country in an alliance
| with Putin.
|
| Very broadly I think the US has done a poor job
| explaining just how beneficial America's position in the
| world is to America itself. You see it reflected in the
| USAID stuff too. Soft power pays dividends in ways that
| aren't immediately apparent so when it's gone people just
| don't care all that much. It'll be interesting to see
| where this all lands 20 or so years from now and how the
| US public feels about it then.
| umanwizard wrote:
| This isn't in the nature of democracy, it's in the nature
| of winner-take-all FPTP presidential systems
| specifically.
| afavour wrote:
| Fair, I've updated my post. I'd argue it's not just FPTP
| presidential systems, though. Even in proportional
| representation you still only get one vote so you pick
| the candidate that's the best fit for you, you still
| don't get to pick and choose which parts of their agenda
| get enacted.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Yes, but different people will care more or less about
| different things and thus vote for different parties
| which all have to work together to form coalitions, which
| in theory then have to reflect a negotiated compromise
| among the different things that different people care
| about.
|
| It's not perfectly efficient, and it _can_ suffer from
| the problem you're describing, but far less severely than
| the US system does.
| kelseydh wrote:
| By definition, it is impossible for a single winner
| contest like the Presidency to be proportionally elected.
| Proportionality matters for multi-member bodies like
| legislatures or parliaments. I.e. 20% of the vote nets
| 20% of the seats. Single winner contests can only
| represent at best, half or more of the population when
| working well.
|
| Winner take all (one winner): FPTP, single member
| district ranked ballots
|
| Proportional (multiple winners): Party lists, MMP, multi-
| member district ranked ballots (STV)
| kelnos wrote:
| I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I wish it
| was easier to explain this sort of thing to people. Most
| MAGA people look at any taxpayer money spent abroad, for
| any purpose, as a waste, when that money could be spent
| on US citizens locally.
|
| Diplomacy and soft power is a complex, nuanced concept
| that can't be explained easily.
| outside1234 wrote:
| This is why it matters that the president just EXECUTES
| policy but does not decide the WHAT or HOW MUCH it or
| decide if it is JUST.
|
| This brings a wider perspective, which is why what Elon
| is doing is so scary because it takes out that wider
| perspective
| khazhoux wrote:
| Ronald Reagan was obviously a RINO. /s
|
| But in all seriousness, my bewilderment isn't so much that
| Reagan's stance against Russia was discarded (parties
| change over time, as well as the relationship between
| nations), but that it happened with zero pushback and zero
| discourse. The party leader said, with no explanation, "Our
| #1 enemy is now our ally" and the party simply said "But of
| course, no one should doubt this!"
| sitkack wrote:
| Ronald Reagan is a now a Democrat.
| lostlogin wrote:
| And an ally that was stripped of nuclear weapons with
| security guarantees made at that time _including by the US_.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-
| put...
| simpaticoder wrote:
| I don't normally comment on politics, but Trump and Vance's
| behavior was over the line. And your comment is salient. We
| can look forward to a period of nuclear proliferation among
| our allies since they cannot depend on the USA anymore. We
| are already seeing Germany seek out nukes; Canada will soon
| follow if it values its sovereignity. The fact that anyone
| with eyes could see this coming if Trump was elected again
| is of small comfort - they say that those who don't know
| history are doomed to repeat it, but those who know history
| are doomed to watch others repeat it. I have never been
| ashamed to be an American citizen until today. Zelenskyy is
| a courageous, heroic leader resisting a much more powerful,
| authoritarian agressor who hungers for the downfall of the
| West and all democratic societies. Z could have left
| Ukraine in the early days of the invasion but chose to stay
| and fight. Meanwhile Trump's "bone spurs" exempted him from
| service in Vietnam, and he disparages war heroes like
| McCain before and after his death. Lindsay Graham says
| "I've never been more proud of the President" and it's like
| walking out of Star Wars: A New Hope hearing half of the
| audience excited to see such a compelling new hero, Darth
| Vader. Insanity.
| rayiner wrote:
| What does "ally" mean?
| adfm wrote:
| Ask yourself how many people will die as a result of this
| show of incompetence.
|
| If you're interested in how a democracy should handle itself
| in such a situation, take a look at Justin Trudeau's recent
| speech pledging support for Ukraine.
|
| Don't be a sucker. [^1]
|
| [^1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4
| redmajor12 wrote:
| Ukraine is not a formal ally of the United States.
| surfpel wrote:
| A puppet isn't an ally, it's a puppet.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| Note the date on that video.
| jjulius wrote:
| @dang can we do something about this spam?
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Every day I feel more ashamed of my country. Especially because
| nothing that's happened since Trump returned to office is a
| surprise (including this): apparently the median US voter
| _wanted_ this.
|
| Horrible. I feel so badly for the Ukrainian people.
| cpwright wrote:
| I think that the median US voter likely did not want this.
|
| With two candidates and a variety of issues, you are very
| likely going to have to compromise on something. You can
| support Trump's immigration policy, DOGE efforts, and more;
| without thinking that the US should help Putin restore the
| Soviet Union.
|
| Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either of
| the presidential candidates. I only voted on the down ballot
| races.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| People are wildly out of touch with where the far right is
| and how big of a movement it is.
|
| Sure, maybe not 51% of the country wanted this. But I would
| be shocked if it's less than 38%.
|
| That number is FAR too large.
| CobaltFire wrote:
| Then you own this as much as someone who voted for it.
|
| Abstention just buys you ownership of whatever happens,
| regardless of who wins.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either
| of the presidential candidates.
|
| You really looked at both candidates and decided both were
| equally bad?
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I think that the median US voter likely did not want
| this._
|
| I can't speak to the level of public support for Ukraine,
| though it seems most Trump supporters don't really care
| about Ukraine and want the US to stop spending money on
| foreign wars. Despite anecdotes about Trump voters being
| upset by executive branch cuts, polling suggests ~95% of
| Trump voters are ok with or actively pleased with his
| gutting of the government.
|
| The median US voter _does_ want this.
|
| > _Personally, I could not bring myself to vote for either
| of the presidential candidates._
|
| Then you voted for Trump, in that case. If you can vote,
| and don't, then that's tacit approval of what voters
| choose.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Greenland and Gaza are just minor exceptions that confirm
| the rule, right.
|
| There's one thing T cares about. T.
|
| Zelenski said bad things about him to the dems. Noughty
| Zelenski, let's publicly humiliate him with the help of
| my dog V.
| khazhoux wrote:
| It's what America wanted. I've decided to stop caring. It's all
| a joke now. We'll try again in 44 months.
| kflgkans wrote:
| You're mistaken. This is no joke.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It's not what America wanted. It's what the felon-in-chief
| wants, but he doesn't represent most Americans.
| jszymborski wrote:
| That becomes harder to believe in light of the most recent
| electoral result where he won the popular vote. I do want
| to believe that he doesn't represent most Americans,
| however.
| JohnFen wrote:
| It seems clear that non-MAGA people who voted for Trump
| did so because they believed his BS promises to make the
| economy better and fast, and secondarily because of the
| immigration issue. Most of them didn't think Trump would
| actually do all of the horrible things he and others said
| he was going to do.
|
| And even then, he only barely won the election. It was
| the slimmest margin since the 1800s.
| dboreham wrote:
| Not at all clear. Are voters really that stupid? Seems
| more likely there are more evil people around us than we
| expected, and they knowingly voted for evil.
| halostatue wrote:
| He won 49% of the votes cast. He did not get a majority,
| but a plurality. The turnout was ~64%, so he got ~30% of
| the possible votes. His main opponent got about ~28% of
| the possible votes.
|
| He doesn't have the mandate he thinks he does, but he's a
| megalomaniac led by his nose ring by the psycopathic
| megalomaniacs behind Project 2025, which ~90% (more?) of
| Americans said that they didn't like when they saw it.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| All speculation and the non voters said: I do not care
| entropi wrote:
| Sorry, but I don't think these percentages, turnouts, and
| other technicalities matter, at all.
|
| This is how the American people has chosen to represent
| themselves. The American people created the system, and
| the Americans knew their own system. The system produced
| this guy.
|
| Now, why does it matter which percentage did he get? He
| got enough, did not he? And obviously he does have the
| mandate, because he is able to do things his way.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| It represents most Americans who voted.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I disagree entirely.
| tdeck wrote:
| That's not even factually correct. He won less than 50%
| of the popular vote.
| khazhoux wrote:
| There is precisely one way in which the will of the
| American people is measured. When we talk about "what
| America wants", it doesn't include the opinion of people
| who didn't show up in November. People who choose not to
| vote throw away their right to be included in the "what
| America wants" bucket. This shouldn't be a controversial
| statement.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Trump barely won the popular vote, so even ignoring the
| rest of the citizenry, it's a real stretch to say that he
| represents "the will of the people" in any significant
| way. At best, he represents "the will of half of the
| people who voted" -- and even that's a stretch, because a
| lot of the people who voted for him opposed his stance on
| most things.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Well, he won the popular vote.
| kelnos wrote:
| And yet, polling so far shows that 90+% of Trump voters are
| still fine with what he's been doing to the executive
| branch, and I expect most of those people don't
| particularly care about Ukraine or understand the nuances
| of diplomacy or soft power.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Stop. This is our president. This is our face to the world.
| By democratic vote. We can't weasel out of this. This IS
| who we are as a nation right now. Don't 'this isn't us' on
| HN. Do something in real life to change things so that this
| stops being us. But today, this is us. You and me.
| UltraSane wrote:
| I'm tempted to join a monastery.
| wilg wrote:
| exactly the wrong instinct
| duxup wrote:
| I don't think the minority of Americans who voted for him
| really thought about this situation.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| And the mother that didn't check on her baby in the bath
| didn't mean for them to drown. In real life there's
| consequences for being negligent and careless.
| kelnos wrote:
| If you take US eligible voters who did not vote, and put
| them on Trump's side of the vote tally, then he gets more
| than 50% of all eligible voters.
|
| To me, staying home and not voting in an election is a
| silent vote for whoever the winner ends up being. These
| people soft-voted for Trump.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This was explicitly predicted by Democrats and loudly
| expressed. Enlightened centrists insisted we were being
| hyperbolic.
|
| Nobody has any right to claim surprise. If you couldn't see
| this coming, you are stupid, full stop.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _It 's what America wanted._
|
| Yeah... Egg shortages. Fatal
| measles outbreaks. Airplane crashes. Crypto
| scams. Tariffs. Betrayal of allies.
| Pardons and special favors for insurrectionists, crooked
| mayors, and online pimps. The American people voted
| for change!
|
| * https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1895150416738033992
| sitkack wrote:
| * 77,302,580 voted for this administration (49.8%)
|
| * 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%)
|
| With an estimated population of 341M, there were
| approximately 90M people who were eligible to vote (over 18,
| and not prevented from voting from a conviction) that did not
| vote.
|
| The American people DO NOT support Trump. He only won due to
| voter suppression and a massive amount of ad money.
|
| From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410
| jisnsm wrote:
| Democrats vastly outspent republicans.
| https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-
| sp...
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think we can look at it that simply.
|
| Of the voters who didn't vote for Trump or Harris,
| certainly some of them would have voted for Trump (or not
| voted at all) if their third-party candidate didn't exist.
| Put another way, if we had universal approval or ranked-
| choice voting, it's plausible that Trump would have ended
| up with a popular vote majority (but it could have gone
| either way, certainly).
|
| > there were approximately 90M people who were eligible to
| vote that did not vote.*
|
| Whenever an election is decided, I generally move all of
| those uncast votes over to the tally of whoever won.
| Staying home and not voting is the same thing as a soft-
| vote for whoever wins.
|
| > _voter suppression_
|
| I wish we could really quantify this. Not that it would
| change MAGA minds about anything, but it could be useful to
| know.
|
| > _a massive amount of ad money_
|
| Harris had a similarly massive amount of ad money, too, and
| it didn't help.
|
| Honestly, I think the failures of the Democratic party
| machine as a whole are just as responsible for Harris's
| loss as GOP underhandedness is.
| sitkack wrote:
| You said I was looking at simply. I reported the election
| results. The majority of the voters did not vote for this
| administration.
|
| > Democratic party machine as a whole are just as
| responsible for Harris's loss as GOP underhandedness is.
|
| This we agree on.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-
| spent-290-million-2...
|
| It isn't just the money, but whom it benefits. Someone
| almost no discretionary income, 100 or 300 is a ton of
| money. Musk won't even notice the 290M.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| Just because I didn't vote does not mean my vote was
| "suppressed".
| TinkersW wrote:
| I don't think that is why he won.
|
| Dems basically handed this election to Trump; Biden running
| when he had memory issues, then handing it to Harris whose
| numbers were questionable against Trump(with the braindead
| excuse that only she could get the funds), along with
| generally not responding to issues voters obviously care
| about(border), trying to ignore issues like excessive
| wokeness/DEI instead of admitting it is a problem.
|
| Trump is going to lie and obviously only cares about
| himself, some % of rubes will vote for that, but you don't
| have to make it so damn easy for him.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| > I've decided to stop caring.
|
| This is a problem because if you stop caring about Ukraine
| falling, you will start to care when Poland, baltic
| countries, etc., get overrun next. Zelenskyy wasn't joking
| when he mentioned American shores.
| blastonico wrote:
| Exactly, Trump should have given him more $100 billion.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| I didn't know Vance was that low-class.
|
| Has he always been like that or is it something repulsive he's
| picking up from Trump?
|
| He needs serious exposure to mature, cultured, well-mannered
| gentlemen and to get some pointers from honest, respectable US
| presidents and vice-presidents like he's getting none of now.
| Or he'll never reagin his former integrity, if he actually had
| enough to make a difference, it makes me wonder.
| UltraSane wrote:
| It makes more sense when you understand he is an actor
| reading the script he is given. He cannot act independently
| and what he says has no relation to his actual opinions, if
| he even has any of his own. This is true for most of the GOP
| at this point. Exceptions include Romney.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Let's not strip agency from these people. They didn't
| magically end up in these positions, they actively worked
| for this shit.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| [delayed]
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Everything Trump touches ... dies.
|
| RIP Elon RIP Vance etc
| tdeck wrote:
| These people got into bed with Trump of their own free
| will. Maybe there wasn't much to respect about them in the
| first place?
| jszymborski wrote:
| All aspects of Vance's personality expand and contract to
| fill whatever cause or purpose serves his personal interest.
| This is evident throughout his career.
| gambiting wrote:
| When he went to visit Europe and gave his famous tirade, it
| was very telling he didn't meet with the German chancellor
| but met with the leader of AfD, you know, the guys with well
| proven neo nazi and fascist links. He's not interested in
| being a gentleman, we're playing a different kind of game now
| - game where they believe winner takes everything and goals
| justify the means.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| JD is a big fan of Curtis Yarvin who popularized the idea
| that democracy must be overcome and be replaced by some
| kind of oligarchy.
|
| This is what the global alt-right movement, which the AfD
| is a part of, wants.
|
| They see democracy as a weak system and want to replace it
| by a kind of neo-feudalism.
|
| It's clear that Ukraine, that fights against the Russian
| version of that system, must be made to be an example than
| democracy can not win.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| he's just a small hillbilly boy from ohio
| dboreham wrote:
| With eyeliner.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| He's a muckraker is James Donald.
| wilg wrote:
| vance may be the most unlikeable person i have ever heard
| speak. he just has no charisma and is constantly crying
| crocodile tears about the dumbest thing you've ever heard of.
| mellosouls wrote:
| I can't see this as Vance acting without prior consultation
| and authorisation from Trump - its too serious a breach of
| protocol and tradition.
|
| For that reason, this smells of a pre-planned ambush.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| Former integrity?
|
| He got his start cosplaying as a former downtrodden redneck
| from the holler, when he's from suburban Ohio.
| dingnuts wrote:
| I read 2/3 of his book when it came out and nothing pissed
| me off more than realizing exactly what you just said. His
| GRANDMOTHER was Appalachian. Not him. He's a fucking
| carpetbagger
| dralley wrote:
| >> But as Romney surveyed the crop of Republicans running for
| Senate in 2022, it was clear that more Hawleys were on their
| way. Perhaps most disconcerting was J. D. Vance, the
| Republican candidate in Ohio. "I don't know that I can
| disrespect someone more than J. D. Vance," Romney told me.
| They'd first met years earlier, after he read Vance's best-
| selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. Romney was so impressed with
| the book that he hosted the author at his annual Park City
| summit in 2018. Vance, who grew up in a poor, dysfunctional
| family in Appalachia and went on to graduate from Yale Law
| School, had seemed bright and thoughtful, with interesting
| ideas about how Republicans could court the white working
| class without indulging in toxic Trumpism. Then, in 2021,
| Vance decided he wanted to run for Senate, and reinvented his
| entire persona overnight. Suddenly, he was railing against
| the "childless left" and denouncing Indigenous Peoples' Day
| as a "fake holiday" and accusing Joe Biden of manufacturing
| the opioid crisis "to punish people who didn't vote for him."
| The speed of the MAGA makeover was jarring.
|
| >> "I do wonder, how do you make that decision?" Romney mused
| to me as Vance was degrading himself on the campaign trail
| that summer. "How can you go over a line so stark as that--
| and for what?" Romney wished he could grab Vance by the
| shoulders and scream: This is not worth it! "It's not like
| you're going to be famous and powerful because you became a
| United States senator. It's like, really? You sell yourself
| so cheap?" The prospect of having Vance in the caucus made
| Romney uncomfortable. "How do you sit next to him at lunch?"
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/11/mitt-
| ro...
| dboreham wrote:
| Vance has always been an obsequious pillock.
| redmajor12 wrote:
| When did Zelensky's presidential term expired again?
| mcv wrote:
| When there is peace. Just as with Churchill. And most
| European leaders during WW2.
|
| You can't hold free elections when you're not free.
| sublimefire wrote:
| They cannot have normal elections anyway, a bunch of people
| in occupied territories, not to mention soldiers in active
| duty who cannot leave their posts to vote. Whilst Putin is
| ruling since 2020 (except Medvedev term).
| y0ssar1an wrote:
| They literally can't have an election until the war ends:
|
| * millions of Ukrainians in the occupied territories * 1000km
| frontline that is extremely thin in places. should they pull
| troops off the line to vote, or run ballot boxes to the
| trenches? * their Constitution forbids it * the Russians will
| attack polling places, possibly killing hundreds
|
| Britian didn't have an election for 10 years because of WWII,
| so it's not like it's unprecedented for a democracy to put
| elections on hold during an existential crisis.
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Absolutely heartbreaking. How many of the people arguing have
| seen any footage of the atrocities committed by Russia.
|
| It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes
| and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube
| (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo
| arcbyte wrote:
| Overall, Zelensky miscalculated when he challenged the VP like
| that. Nothing good was gonna come from that in that setting.
|
| But I dont know why Vance even jumped in like that. It both
| undercut Trump and forced Zelensky to voice his disagreement.
|
| But then they both attacked him for some perceived lack of
| gratitude which just spiraled out of control.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| It looked planned to me, with canned talking points 'I clutch
| my pearls at you talking to us like that in OUR OVAL
| OFFICE!'.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Of course it was. Look at Trump's facial expression. He was
| calmly waiting to attack. Everyone had become desensitized
| to previous antics, so they had to escalate, just like on
| any good TV show.
|
| People need to understand that who they're dealing with a
| trolls, not idiots or geniuses. The two negotiating
| strategies are to 1. provoke 2. create uncertainty. This
| seems to be extremely efficient at getting them attention,
| emotionally exhausting opposition, keeping counterparts
| off-balance and has the benefit of being able to make them
| a lot of money, considering that they're in control of
| market instability.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Zelensky did nothing wrong.
| terio wrote:
| It was a setup
| sleepyguy wrote:
| This entire administration is shameful, I hope that this haunts
| them, what they did to Zelensky is unbelievable.
| munksbeer wrote:
| Christ that is awful. I'm not going to sugar coat it, I think
| Trump and Vance are disgusting people. Proper bullies, to someone
| in a much weaker position.
| goshx wrote:
| Can we take the opportunity to discuss why Trump's administration
| is so desperately going after rare earth minerals? Greenland,
| Canada, Ukraine...
|
| Is it only about chips and AI for economic reasons or is there
| more involved like, an army of robots or something to control
| everything?
| bloopernova wrote:
| It's coming from elon, who has courted russia for Ukraine's
| metals and minerals since at least the 2022 invasion.
| goshx wrote:
| That's what I suspect as well, especially with the tesla
| bots, but there is also Ellison's influence
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| I think it's the same reason Musk is promoting his Mars
| bullshit.
|
| This appears as very long term thinking, while in reality is a
| way to siphon money in the short term and sell whatever idea
| they currently have under this long term plan.
|
| Not to say that it would be bad for US to own Greenland - of
| course it would be great. Mars too BTW...
| pjc50 wrote:
| Greenland is worthless, and having a long running territorial
| dispute with the entirety of Europe would be bad for all
| involved.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Worthless ?
|
| Given it's natural ressources and geographical position
| it's extremely intresting. But of coures the second part is
| right - it's just not in the realm of possible, without
| going to an ugly fight with Europe.
| forum-soon-yuck wrote:
| Greenland is absolutely worthy in terms of being an easy
| target to set forth the precedent of US annexing other
| countries just like Crimea did for Putin before the full-on
| invasion
| dboreham wrote:
| US has for all practical purposes owned Greenland since WW2.
| V__ wrote:
| In the last Trump administration there were enough people
| handling him. This time there are only yes men, so anything we
| see, is him unstopped/unfiltered. Trump doesn't understand
| complexities just "winning", he understands that minerals are
| valuable so he wants them, that is it. He also wants the peace
| price, but he doesn't understand long term strategy or planning
| so this situation, this sudden shift and strong arming is him
| wanting to accomplish this goal now. He feels Putin is stronger
| so the goal is easier accomplished by forcing Ukraines hand.
|
| If one views it trough the lens of: What a high school bully,
| who has no self control and can't delay gradification, would
| do... then nothing Trump does is surprising.
| donmcronald wrote:
| I would like to know this too.
|
| I have no idea, so this is pure speculation, but as charge
| cycles for batteries keep increasing I'm guessing they'll
| become more valuable, especially if they're made from finite
| resources. Consider a scenario where you never own the battery
| and have to lease it forever.
|
| The opposite side would be choking off the supply of the rare
| minerals needed to make batteries with the intent of making it
| more difficult to switch to renewable energy. You'd need all of
| them though and I just don't see them improving their position
| in Canada.
|
| Or it could be as simple as "gold is shiny" and Trump wants
| them because he's heard they're valuable.
| philipkglass wrote:
| I don't think that it makes sense. Rare earth elements aren't
| actually very rare, they don't have a lot of market value
| compared to other minerals [1], and there are already abundant
| known deposits in North America (including the United States).
|
| There are two main reasons that REE production is dominated by
| China. One is that Chinese production is low-cost. Two is that
| the total market demand is small, so that (absent some long
| term price guarantee) adding another big REE production center
| outside of China will probably tank the market value and lose
| the investors money. See the history of the Mountain Pass mine
| in California:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_Rare_Earth_Mine
|
| This one mine produced most of the world's REE between 1965 and
| 1995. It closed in 2002 because it had a toxic spill that would
| be too expensive to remediate given the arrival of Chinese
| competition. In 2012 it reopened as a reaction to Chinese
| export restrictions on REE instated 2 years earlier. In 2015
| global REE prices went back down and the Mountain Pass mine
| went bankrupt again. It resumed operating in 2018 after it was
| brought back out of bankruptcy. It relies on frosty US-China
| trade relations and government support to remain a going
| concern. There's not enough global demand for REE to keep
| Mountain Pass independently profitable whenever Chinese export
| restrictions get relaxed.
|
| [1] In terms of total market value, I mean. Dysprosium has a
| high value per kilogram but the current annual demand for all
| rare earth elements combined is under $8 billion, compared to
| e.g. $20 billion for zinc alone.
| beefnugs wrote:
| He is simple power hungry monkey: russian can attack countries
| and get away with it, israel can kill anyone they want, why
| cant his country? He just heard from his richest powercunt that
| he uses "rare earth" to make batteries, so he wants
| skippyboxedhero wrote:
| There are almost no rare earth minerals in Ukraine. The
| "desperately going after rare earth minerals" line is something
| that has appeared in the media...but at no point did they
| actually check whether Ukraine has any (beyond comical maps
| that tell you nothing about the grade, recoverability, etc.).
|
| The reason for the deal is: recover money for taxpayers,
| provide some security guarantee without an explicit commitment
| that will end up with US being deployed, and backstop
| significant private-sector investment into Ukraine to try to
| revive their economy (after the war destroyed and maimed a huge
| proportion of their working adult population).
|
| There are (almost) no rare earth minerals though.
| dboreham wrote:
| My take was the mineral deal was invented by Z (more likely
| staffers) as a clever ploy designed to appeal to T who is a
| colossal idiot and can only conceive of geopolitics as
| consisting of zero sum "deals" that one country makes with
| another. So they invented a deal. I always assumed it would
| be a shit deal for T, since idiot and all. But it seems he
| wanted the shit sandwich for free. Basically negotiated
| himself into no deal.
| freen wrote:
| Realtalk: Would you entrust the nuclear arsenal to someone who
| honestly thinks "asylum seekers" came from an insane asylum?
|
| https://thespectator.com/topic/spectator-interview-president...
| freen wrote:
| Can someone please make this make sense?
|
| "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber
| Command to stand down from all planning against Russia,
| including offensive digital actions."
|
| https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-d...
| aaroninsf wrote:
| This timeline is so bad, it is increasingly hard to dismiss the
| possibility that that is not the product of change, but rather
| the product of being in an absolutely shitty simulation.
| te0006 wrote:
| or of a CERN experiment in ~2015 having had ...side effects
| seydor wrote:
| It looks like the US wants a regime change in Ukraine, it's
| possible that this became a pre condition from russia for talks
| to go forward.
|
| OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a
| stake in defending the postwar ukraine.
|
| Lots of drama and optics involved for sure, but it seems the
| outcome or the talks was predetermined
|
| JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace
| him?
| preisschild wrote:
| > OTOH, a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will
| have a stake in defending the postwar ukraine.
|
| Most of the minerals are in russian-occupied territory, so if
| they want that they would also need to further arm Ukraine now.
| techterrier wrote:
| nope, they can do a deal with the Russians.
| kadoban wrote:
| It does not seem like Trump actually wants a deal. They are
| not offering anything. It appears to be simply a pretext to
| have some reason to berate Ukraine and Zelenskyy.
|
| "Oh you won't take our [completely ridiculous] deal? I guess
| we'll just have to side with Russia then!" Like that's not
| what they were going to do anyway.
| ksaj wrote:
| Putin said he would gladly share with the US. So there is yet
| another, larger carrot dangling in front of Trump's eyes.
| GuestFAUniverse wrote:
| Like Gaza for the development of Kushner's hotels on the
| seaside.
|
| And I bet the right-wing-conservative scum helping him from
| Israel already got their shares.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| If the Vice Presidency is vacant, the President nominates and
| Congress (both houses) confirm.
|
| > Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice
| President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who
| shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both
| Houses of Congress.
|
| 25th Amendment
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
|
| The VP can be removed by Congress (impeachment), the President
| cannot direct the VP to vacate the office.
| nikanj wrote:
| With the current string of SCOTUS decisions, Trump can have
| the VP shot at dawn, declare it an official act, and elect
| Musk as the new VP.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That would not be directing him to vacate the office, but
| yes he could probably do that. But he wouldn't elect Musk,
| he could nominate Musk. He'd still need Congress (beholden
| to Musk for their future seats if GOP) to confirm him. But
| you also have to be qualified to be President to be Vice
| President, so Musk would be disqualified anyways.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Who is going to disqualify him? Republicans would just
| invent some doublethink for why it is okay for this
| particular African to have that role. The extremely
| partisan SCOTUS will allow it, and that will be that.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| If SCOTUS says it's ok, then the US Constitution is
| completely tossed out and SCOTUS has no authority to say
| anything. That's not to say they wouldn't make a decision
| like that, but to disregard the literal text of the
| Constitution would make both Congress and SCOTUS
| unnecessary, they can be scrapped in seconds with an EO
| after a decision like that.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| We've already had that decision, last year. _Trump v.
| Anderson_. Per the Supreme Court, if Congress doesn 't
| explicitly call something out down to the last detail and
| already have anyone potentially impacted on double-secret
| probation, then oops, too bad, nothing anyone else can do
| to enforce the Constitution.
|
| The Vice-President and President need to meet the
| standards in the Constitution? Did Congress pass a law
| establishing _how_ those standards are to be judged and
| enforced? No? Guess they don 't matter then. If Congress
| wanted, it could pass a law and Trump could sign it.
| Unless that happens, the Constitution is just
| unenforceable. -\\_(tsu)_/-
| croisillon wrote:
| if a foreign born person can not become president, i guess
| they can't become vp either?
| wilg wrote:
| that is correct but the OP's point is that SCOTUS won't
| care about that
| croisillon wrote:
| right, ok
| ben_w wrote:
| > elect Musk as the new VP
|
| I think Musk is unconstitutional for that role? Not natural
| born Anerican.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Those rules surely only apply to regular
| peasants^Wsubjects^Wpeople
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't know what would get the military to refuse
| orders, but I suspect that openly disregarding the
| constitution is one of the more likely.
| wilg wrote:
| you just launder a SCOTUS decision with some braindead
| argument and 50% of the country will believe it overnight
| ben_w wrote:
| Sure, and I'd default to assuming the % in the military
| is always higher because they're trained to follow
| orders.
|
| But if anything makes some among them say "to allow this
| would be to violate my oath to support and defend the
| Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
| foreign and domestic", then disregarding the constitution
| would be it.
|
| I'm not saying the administration wouldn't try it. I am
| suggesting that it may lead to a demonstration of how NIJ
| RF3 doesn't stop 120x570mm NATO.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| There's a strong argument to go with who has the most
| satellites.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Would you like to wager against JD Vance lasting the entire
| term?
| rco8786 wrote:
| Seriously. He parroted his boss to the best of his ability.
| I'm sure trump is perfectly pleased with his "performance".
| GolfPopper wrote:
| I suspect Trump lasting the entire term is less likely.
|
| If something happens to Trump after January 20th, 2027, Vance
| can serve out the remainder of this term, then run as the
| incumbent for two additional terms as a frontman for the
| Musk/Thiel axis, a role he has played well for some time.
|
| If the country's rulers want to bother to keep the pretense
| of Constitutional government, that is.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| > _a minerals deal with the US ensures that the US will have a
| stake in defending the postwar ukraine._
|
| It will not. Trump will simply use the deal as an excuse to
| betray Ukraine (more than he already has). I can practically
| hear it playing out now.
|
| "I had to force Ukraine to completely surrender to Russia. It
| was the only way to make sure Russia honored the mineral rights
| granted to my billionaire friends."
| daedrdev wrote:
| Vance has even better chances of lasting the entire term after
| his pro-Russia performance today.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| The outcome was predetermined. Z was not fully sold on this,
| and Trump/Vance just wanted to maximize the optics, hence the
| fall out. Just a small ripple, the deep states will rebalance
| this out.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| Vance is currently trading sideways to slightly up on Kalshi's
| market for who will be the Republican nominee in the next
| election.
| duped wrote:
| > JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to
| replace him?
|
| fwiw, the President cannot fire the VP. The Vice Presidency is
| an independent political office.
| tasuki wrote:
| > JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to
| replace him?
|
| Why won't he last long?
| seydor wrote:
| Too controversial, tends to overshadow his notoriously
| insecure boss
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Zelensky just proved once again what real leadership looks like.
|
| He went to the White House knowing that they will try to do
| exactly that and yet he did it with his head held high and did
| not sign the deal. Amazing guy.
|
| This is also a historic day for the world. US dominance over the
| West is over.
|
| As a European, I will vote against any politician that keeps
| talking about EU-US special partnership and doesn't put 'EU
| First'. The special partnership is over, we are still doing
| business together but it's clear as a day that it's only business
| from now on.
| fooker wrote:
| You're not wrong, but there's a reason US was in this position
| for this long.
|
| There's no 'EU first', every European country has constantly
| tried to one up their rivals for the last several centuries.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| On the other hand, EU is a very recent experiment, given the
| length of European history.
|
| In that sense, European countries were never as close as they
| are right now. I expect it to strengthen as time passes,
| especially now that the US should be seen as an hostile
| foreign nation to every European country.
|
| Not to mention that after the shitshow that Brexit proved to
| be, even right-wing parties in Europe sort of abandoned their
| "leave EU" rhetoric.
| manmal wrote:
| We'd need a common language in order to get as close as US
| states are to each other. English does work, but it's not
| quite the same.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Eh, English does the job.
|
| I don't think a common language is as necessary as you
| are making it out to be. India uses English as lingua
| franca because it has dozens on languages, and it is a
| more or less cohesive country.
| romanhn wrote:
| Yeah, from my perspective this was just a dog and pony show.
| Trump and Vance got to look big and strong (their perception
| anyways) next to Zelensky, and he got to look like he's willing
| to continue the conversation. Doubt anyone actually expected
| progress out of this.
| ajross wrote:
| > As a European, I will vote against any politician that keeps
| talking about EU-US special partnership and doesn't put 'EU
| First'.
|
| Isn't that _exactly_ the logic behind Trumpism though? "Our
| partners suck, we need to put our own interests first" is how
| you get isolation and trade wars. And sometimes real wars.
|
| I mean, maybe that's where things are going. But "as a
| European" you should at least recognize that's the policy
| you're arguing for.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| bad choice of words from me indeed. What I wanted to say is
| that a lot of people, especially in the Eastern Europe look
| at the US as a rock solid partner - even more solid than EU.
| That dates back to WWII.
|
| Its time to change that perception.
| spinlock_ wrote:
| Imho still better than relying on a bully.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Was what happened today in the White House the best outcome for
| Ukraine? It is hard to see how that is the case.
| dygd wrote:
| Clearly not the best possible outcome. But what happened
| today cleared up any notion of the current US administration
| being an "ally". Seems like a defining moment and Europe will
| have to do a whole lot of think on how to move forward.
| torlok wrote:
| "Best outcome", no. "Best possible outcome", probably.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Thank god that finally we're going to stop sending hundreds of
| thousands of men into a meat grinder for no purpose. Ofc, Trump
| is doing this in great part because he personally hates Zelensky
| and Biden. He's doing what he did to Obama and just unwinding
| everything his predecessor did. He also correctly ascertains that
| this is a huge waste of money that is counterproductive.
|
| All the liberal cold warriors that wanted to bleed russia made
| Russia stronger by doing this. Not that I care either way, but
| it's funny to watch these war hawks have it blow up in their
| face, not that they really care since they are eating charcuterie
| at DC lawn parties with their Raytheon bucks.
| tgv wrote:
| The US has an effective way of ending that: more, heavier
| weapons, no restrictions, and a promise to place peace keepers.
| Instead, they chose to infuriate a key player. Cui bono?
| kubb wrote:
| Russia will just attack again. Ukrainans and their own poor and
| non-ethnic-Russian population are just subhumans to them and
| they literally don't care about any deaths.
| surfpel wrote:
| 10000% could not agree more. The American elite's should be
| charged with war crimes.
| tonymet wrote:
| Negotiations get heated. It's the only way to reach an honest
| agreement. Better to get those feelings out.
|
| Trump was elected on negotiating a peace, and that's going to
| piss off Zelensky. Zelensky became entitled to a blank check with
| no strings attached. Now the terms have changed.
|
| There are some people who expect dialog to proceed like an HR
| meeting, and those that find relief in direct and sometimes
| heated language.
|
| To me the meeting felt like a tremendous relief. A resolution
| will develop, finally.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| what? you don't have negotiations in public at a press
| conference. what is trump negotiating here? terms that Ukraine
| won't accept? what resolution will come out of this outside of
| hardening Ukrainian resolve, bolstering Zelensky and getting
| Europe to fund the war?
|
| Trump, the master negotiator /s
|
| A shameful, tactless and pre-planned display. it's easy to
| blame trump and vance but the true losers here are the American
| people. American soft power is critical to America's economic
| power.
| castlefreak wrote:
| I actually agree that it was a planned dressing down for
| optics sakes but the attempt is to try to get Zelenskyy out
| of the way for Trump / Putin direct deal to settle Ukraine
| matter and the success of this strategy will depend on
| whether the MAGA media hype will drown out the soft power
| enjoyers in terms of messaging.
| tonymet wrote:
| What can europe fund the war with? Even if they can come up
| with the gold, who are they going to buy the weapons from?
| acdha wrote:
| Gold? It's not the 19th century anymore and if you look at
| list of arms manufacturers you'll find a lot of familiar
| names who take euros:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manuf
| a...
| tonymet wrote:
| the only way to get euros is with gold. The grain &
| minerals aren't being produced because he killed off his
| labor force (young men, and the old ones)
| apstls wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what are the other similar public
| meetings/negotiations you're aware of that were conducted in a
| similar way?
|
| Or generally, since you say this did not deviate from your
| expectations, what are the past events that influenced your
| baseline expectation for conduct on the geopolitical stage?
| tonymet wrote:
| it sounds like you're preferring status quo. I'm saying that
| status quo has failed.
| apstls wrote:
| Could you explain further? Specifically in the context of
| this discussion/today's meeting and conduct?
| tonymet wrote:
| I really couldn't have been any clearer, so I don't know
| what to tell you.
| graublau wrote:
| Civility is overrated. Maybe you felt like tired rhetoric
| from prior admin about Israel or Putin was more effective but
| I sure don't. People are awfully afraid to rock the boat in
| American political discourse. It's probably been too polite
| as a cover for a lot of ugly policy on both the left and
| right.
| demarq wrote:
| Agree with you, too much focus on optics over getting things
| done.
|
| Trump doesn't seem to care if people are unhappy or
| uncomfortable, it's like he has his list of things he said he'd
| do and he's sticking to it.
| apstls wrote:
| Consider the space of possible paths towards peace in UA that
| the current administration can choose from. Do you believe
| the paths with the highest likelihood of success for reaching
| a mutual peace agreement involve making one of the sides
| unhappy, uncomfortable, angry, or by publicly berating them?
|
| It is true that he doesn't care if people are unhappy or
| uncomfortable, it's true he doesn't care about optics, it is
| true that he has a set of things he wants to get done, and
| it's true the first two points influence his approach to
| achieving the latter. However the question - the only
| question that matters - still remains: is this approach the
| most effective course of action to choose? Maybe it's not
| reasonable to assert with complete confidence that it isn't,
| but it is certainly unreasonable to assert that it is.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| >Trump was elected on negotiating a peace
|
| Right
| ckbishop wrote:
| It feels like Vance is playing the part of Edith Bolling Galt
| Wilson in protecting Trump from the 25th amendment (then Article
| II), but he absolutely sucks at it.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| whatever you think of Ukraine or Russia, inviting an elected
| official of a nation under war then spouting off Russian
| propaganda and berating him in public is shameful. I don't think
| we've ever seen such non-diplomatic language and grandstanding in
| the oval office before, in this century at least.
|
| Zelensky was invited to get fox news soundbites of Trump and
| Vance beating up on him. That's it. a sad state of affairs and a
| scathing indictment about how uneducated the maga base is around
| world affairs.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I got this weird dissonance - like this was a science from a TV
| show about the White House, because no-one, I mean no-one would
| ever do that inpublic. Apart from common courtesy, even basic
| management training says praise in public, criticise in private.
|
| Just doing this in front of the world's media ... it's hard to
| understand
| pjc50 wrote:
| The public bullying is intentional.
| dygd wrote:
| Very much so. Trump even said it, "This is good TV". What an
| embarrassment.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| > it's hard to understand
|
| It's not. If you're a remotely rational American right now you
| are experiencing large amounts of grief.
|
| This is just the denial stage of grief.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I've been going through a huge amount of grief since the
| election. I thought I had moved onto acceptance, but anger
| keeps resurfacing.
| callc wrote:
| Stay strong, use this as a opportunity to become a better
| person. Just do the opposite of Trump / Musk, it will get
| you so close to being a saint.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| I started by donating $100 to Ukraine just now.
| jonathanlb wrote:
| It's a cyclical process.
| scoofy wrote:
| Grief is a good way to put it. I know everyone is reinforcing
| their priors, and mine has been the "Housing Theory of
| Everything" for the last decade -- and longer than that if
| you count my mid-2000's (admittedly naive) urban-
| environmentalism advocacy. It's was a pretty niche area for
| advocacy until recently... I'm pretty sure I was the first
| official Strong Towns member in SF.
|
| I'm just blown away that even after the first Trump
| presidency, and now during the second, that the left still
| has _no serious intention_ of addressing any of the
| legitimate grievances that working class has. It 's genuinely
| bananas to see so many people fleeing California for Texas
| and hearing "good riddance." I'm basically broken at this
| point, and I feel like fighting for basic, practical and
| sustainable policies, policies that just _make sense_ , is
| pointless.
|
| https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-
| every...
|
| https://www.strongtowns.org/about
| danny_codes wrote:
| Couldn't agree more. Not a peep about land use reform or
| even any real action on income inequality. DNC offers
| nothing and is somehow surprised people rejected inaction.
| scoofy wrote:
| I mean, I think it's worse than that. I grew up in
| Austin, and still have family there. The fact that a
| lefty like me is _regularly siding with state Republicans
| against local Democrats_ on housing policy is
| legitimately insane.
|
| Austin is basically the _only_ city with dropping housing
| prices right now and that 's happening in large part _in
| spite_ of city policy, not because of it. Yes, the
| Republicans are creating tons of new sprawl there, and
| that 's bad, but _it 's a crisis_, not some long term
| concern we can fiddle with the knobs over. Obviously, the
| sustainability parts of me don't like sprawl (especially
| from a Strong Towns perspective), but it's not like the
| Dems there are upzoning anything more than a token number
| of corridors.
|
| I've had a perpetual criticism of my fellow Dems since my
| days of naive urban-enviornmentalism: as long as "the bus
| is for _other people_ " we won't have good public
| transit. The same goes for housing. As long as lefties
| don't actually want to live in a multi-unit European-
| style townhouses in walkable neighborhoods, we're not
| going to actually do anything substantial about housing
| or climate change, but with token projects we can pretend
| we will... and proceed to keep failing working people.
| wilg wrote:
| the 7 stages of grief or whatever is fake btw
| epgui wrote:
| If you think it's fake you're misunderstanding its purpose.
|
| Its purpose is not to describe how the brain works at a
| mechanical level, its purpose is to be a useful concept.
| And it is a useful concept.
| obelos wrote:
| It makes more sense when you interpret it as an attempt at
| humiliation, not diplomacy.
| checker659 wrote:
| And to fabricate consent, probably
| tdb7893 wrote:
| I'm less convinced this was planned because I've met people
| like this in real life. Criticizing someone for showing
| disrespect while being incredibly disrespectful yourself
| seems like abusive parent 101.
|
| The fact they talk down to him about the war in Ukraine of
| all things is pretty shocking, like he wouldn't be there if
| he didn't understand the situation in Ukraine (it's not like
| he was there being extorted for minerals because he thinks
| things are going amazingly). Truly an embarrassing day to be
| an American.
| hd4 wrote:
| Yeah it's incredible when the mask drops this far.
|
| Trump is a pathetic fuck, but this lines up with how he only
| ever plays to the domestic audience in advancing protectionist
| interests. We're feeling that dissonance because this kind of
| protectionist thinking is extremely rare, basically unheard of
| these days for world leaders.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| You're witnessing the collapse of American soft power, economic
| power, and our transition to an authoritarian isolationist
| state. Some of us accept it while others still have to grasp
| the situation.
|
| The death of the post cold war neoliberal world order and the
| death of the American century. to be replaced by... ?
| verisimi wrote:
| > no-one, I mean no-one would ever do that inpublic
|
| I agree. It seemed to me like Zelensky initiated the public
| display. Both trump and jd Vance we also commenting on his
| inappropriate public statements.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I thought it looked like an episode of The Apprentice.
| varispeed wrote:
| Russia probably has strong kompromats on Trump and his
| administration. Can't explain it any other way. Why otherwise
| they would go out of the way to make idiots of themselves in
| public in front of the whole world?
|
| I know Trump has not been an example of tact but this is
| something else.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I totally think the people saying that KGB has video or
| photos or whatever from the late '80s of him sleeping with
| KGB agent/call girls or similar are plausible. But I have a
| really hard time imagining Trump being embarrassed by
| anything like that. He'd be like "Of course I slept with
| beautiful women! who wouldn't?"
|
| I'd love to have some idea of what they could actually have
| that he'd be ashamed of, but he's so shameless it's hard for
| me to imagine. Which makes me more inclined to think that he
| just hasn't met a dictator that he's not jealous of more so
| than anything.
| beretguy wrote:
| > Why otherwise they would go out of the way to make idiots
| of themselves in public in front of the whole world?
|
| Because they are pure evil people, just like putin, and
| nobody is stopping them. It's that simple.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| Could be as simple as he wants to say he "ended" the war. If
| history offers any lessons, it's that he doesn't think too
| much about the details and doesn't care how his actions
| impact others.
| poszlem wrote:
| I have never in my entire life seen a better example of the "we
| have always been at war with Eastasia" phenomenon than the recent
| US switch from anti- to pro-Russia stance.
| wg0 wrote:
| On a tangent - J.D Vance is lecturing Europe about freedom of
| speech while AFP is ousted for writing "Gulf of Mexico" as "Gulf
| of Mexico."
| ein0p wrote:
| FYI: you can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on
| Facebook in Europe and the UK. And the UK doesn't permit backup
| encryption. As far as freedom of speech, we have a
| _considerable_ advantage. In some European countries
| (including, ironically, Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to
| criticize the government the way we do it here in the US.
| libertine wrote:
| FYI like Nazi stuff, I believe in a lot of European countries
| doing Nazi salutes to an audience would mean jail time, and
| rightfully so.
| trallnag wrote:
| This this makes Europe less free than the USA. Again,
| nothing wrong with that. Just leaves a sour taste in my
| mouth to try to twist facts.
| thrance wrote:
| American journalists are already getting silenced when
| talking up about the government. What EU county are you even
| talking about? Nowhere is it this bad in Europe.
| ein0p wrote:
| Which ones? You'll have to be more specific.
| thrance wrote:
| Quick summary: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-
| us/article/2025/02/26/in-the...
| dkenyser wrote:
| Oh _they_ have to be more specific while you provide
| absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims?
| danem wrote:
| Silenced as in, not given access to White House officials?
| Sorry but there is a difference between that and arresting
| people for things they say online.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/policing-speech-online-
| germany-...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr548zdmz3jo
| thrance wrote:
| Not given access to the White House, threatened by legal
| action and ousted from their journals [1]. Is that enough
| or should we only start to act when they get disappeared?
|
| Also, I won't cry for the two 4chan basement dwellers
| from your article getting to face the consequences of
| their despicable actions. Sorry, our definition of free
| speech does not include harassment and flurries of racial
| slurs. Literally 1984, I know.
|
| [1] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-
| us/article/2025/02/26/in-the...
| lijok wrote:
| Any definition of free speech other than "absolute", will
| end up weaponized against yourself when the tides shift,
| no matter how virtuous you are.
| 827a wrote:
| American journalists aren't being silenced. One
| organization is being denied access to privileged executive
| spaces, which I disagree with and do not believe should be
| happening, but you need to be more honest in the language
| you use to describe what is happening. If you aren't,
| you're just as bad as the other side.
| thrance wrote:
| It's quite a bit more than that:
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2025/02/26/in-
| the...
|
| Also, let's not fall in false equivalences here.
| 827a wrote:
| There's nothing else in that link beside the current
| situation with the AP. Don't just post links; use your
| words, and discuss in good faith.
| jacobp100 wrote:
| You can criticise the government in any way you like
|
| You can't incite violence - and if you do that when there's a
| riot ongoing, the punishment has resulted in jail time.
| Anything nazi related is also a no-go
| ein0p wrote:
| Not true. Germany can prosecute you for "insulting the
| public officials", Spain - for "insulting the royal
| family", Poland for "offending the Polish nation", Italy
| for widely interpreted "criminal defamation", in Greece it
| is illegal to insult the president, parliament or public
| officials, in Ukraine saying anything against the
| prevailing narrative lands you directly in a torture
| dungeon (like what happened with Gonzalo Lira, who lived in
| Kharkiv, and was arrested, tortured, and left to die of
| pneumonia by Ukrainian SBU).
| oezi wrote:
| No slandering laws in the US? I don't think so.
| luc4 wrote:
| At the risk of stating the obvious, you can criticise the
| government without personally insulting public officals.
| In fact, in Germany, you can be prosecuted for insulting
| anyone; there is nothing special about public officials.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| This lacks any nuance.
|
| Ukraine is in an active war. They restrict pro-enemy
| propaganda.
|
| Do you think your outcome would be any different if you
| publicly posted pro-jihadi anti-American content on
| social media after 9/11?
| Xeamek wrote:
| Post specific or shut up, because this is just spewing
| bullshit with some true bits sprinkled on top for the sake of
| deniability.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| You can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on Facebook
| in the US too.. It's just a slightly different line.
|
| > In some European countries (including, ironically, Ukraine)
| you wouldn't even be able to criticize the government the way
| we do it here in the US.
|
| That's not true.
| otterley wrote:
| > You can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on
| Facebook in the US too. It's just a slightly different
| line.
|
| WTF are you talking about? Unless you're referring to state
| secrets or CSAM, or threatening an official, there's no way
| you're going to jail over a Facebook posting. And it's not
| a "slightly different line." Those and political speech are
| _miles_ apart.
| vsean wrote:
| Try posting death threat about the US president on FB to see
| if you broke the law or not, and if it can land you in jail?
|
| > As far as freedom of speech, we have a _considerable_
| advantage. In some European countries (including, ironically,
| Ukraine) you wouldn't even be able to criticize the
| government the way we do it here in the US.
|
| I'm going to bet that you've never been to Europe and
| understand that each country has very different laws. Cherry
| picking some random issues from several different countries
| and making it seem like it a policy of the entire of the EU
| is silly.
| SCdF wrote:
| > And the UK doesn't permit backup encryption
|
| Apple disabled encrypted iCloud instead of giving the UK
| government a backdoor, or continuing to fight them on the
| idea in general. People in the UK can absolutely continue to
| encrypt my backups.
| wg0 wrote:
| Hate speech isn't free speech.
|
| Any free speech isn't necessarily hate speech but any hate
| speech surely isn't free speech.
|
| There's a huge difference and that restraint is ingrained in
| these societies based on their past experiences.
| oezi wrote:
| Absolutely right! E. G. freedom of speech is in the German
| constitution one of the highest items. But it isn't higher
| than human dignity.
|
| If you slander somebody your freedom of speech and their
| dignity need to be balanced.
|
| In Germany we have chosen to rank dignity higher.
| wg0 wrote:
| And it is as simple as that. I prefer that.
| breckenedge wrote:
| Who gets to define what constitutes "hate speech"?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The only people being jailed in the UK are violent criminals
| who use racism as a pretext for violence, and peaceful
| protestors who threaten the profits of fossil fuel companies.
| jillyboel wrote:
| Try posting your plans to assassinate the orange idiot on
| facebook and see what happens
| 1832 wrote:
| > FYI: you can end up in jail for posting "wrong" things on
| Facebook in Europe and the UK.
|
| What do you mean? What can you currently not say in Europe
| and the UK without getting put in jail for it?
| krona wrote:
| Section 127 of the UK's Communications Act 2003 makes it
| illegal to send e.g. tweets that are "grossly offensive" or
| "indecent, obscene, or menacing".
|
| The Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it illegal to
| send offensive communications.
|
| I could go on...
| hk__2 wrote:
| Please go on because nothing that you mentioned can send
| you in jail.
| krona wrote:
| Oh? How about being held 18 months on remand if you don't
| automatically plead guilty? Perhaps read the sentencing
| guidelines for s127.
| nrawe wrote:
| Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise
| a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree
| with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to
| prison.
|
| I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just
| because I don't like them, up to including threatening
| behaviour.
|
| Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.
| krona wrote:
| Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out
| to be false?[1] Do you have PS50k on hand to defend
| yourself against the accusation that you _knew_ it to be
| false when you sent it? Perhaps you 'd rather spend 18
| months on remand in the meantime, just to be sure you
| don't send anything else that might also be false, while
| we prepare your trial (which may or may not collapse due
| to a complete lack of evidence).
|
| [1]
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/179
| nrawe wrote:
| You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send
| a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by
| spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport)
| there are consequences.
|
| That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I
| think the sky is actually green".
| krona wrote:
| Would accusing you of naivete cause "non-trivial
| psychological harm?"
| nrawe wrote:
| Of course not.
|
| There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat,
| rape threat every day; that's what the law protects
| against.
|
| If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life
| repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other
| people to do the same, then that would be closer to the
| definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
|
| We can see that scenario playing out for people right
| now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
|
| Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on
| Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob
| that stirred up as a result, as an example.
| seb1204 wrote:
| But none of this is related to your opinion. So you are
| still free to state your opinion. Insult, defamation,
| misinformation and hate should not be given the
| protection under the umbrella of free speech.
| teamonkey wrote:
| Section 127 is problematic and should be updated for the
| internet age, but it's disingenuous to imply that any
| "indecent, obscene or menacing" tweet will send you to
| jail.
|
| In particular, the European Convention of Human Rights
| article 10 guarantees freedom of expression and overrules
| both of those acts: "This right shall include freedom to
| hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
| ideas without interference by public authority and
| regardless of frontiers."
|
| So really S127 and the MCA cover extreme cases of
| harassment or abuse. Where it's a problem is what makes
| something "grossly" offensive, indecent, obscene or
| menacing; the interpretation is down to the layers of
| magistrates and judges overseeing each case.
| krona wrote:
| Section 127(2): A person is guilty of an offence if, for
| the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or
| needless anxiety to another, he-- a)
| sends by means of a public electronic communications
| network, a message that he knows to be false
| kubb wrote:
| You can go to jail for criticizing the government in Russia
| and Belarus... Not in any of the EU countries. It's sad that
| you believed whoever sold you this lie.
| trallnag wrote:
| Nice whataboutism. Europe (especially the UK) has less
| freedoms than the USA. That's a fact.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| "freedom of expression isn't freedom from consequences".
| Freedom of expression is about whether the government will use
| state powers to arrest or silence you. Being uninvited to a
| gathering is not that.
| beart wrote:
| It's not as simple as you state. Courts have, in the past,
| had something to say about The White House revoking press
| passes without due process.
|
| The very first hit searching "supreme court decisions white
| house press passes" yields the following, and I leave it to
| you to search further if it pleases you.
|
| https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab.
| ..
| otterley wrote:
| Unfortunately it's an old site, and the deeper links within
| are broken. There aren't any court rulings yet that are
| directly on point with respect to the question of access.
| However, if the Government is conditioning press access
| based on viewpoint, that's immediately suspect, and I would
| expect the courts to apply strict scrutiny to it.
| beart wrote:
| Apologies, I definitely put the minimum effort into that
| response. But as you stated, the point is government
| control over the press tends to raise constitutional
| questions.
| null0pointer wrote:
| You are confusing the principle and western liberal value of
| freedom of speech with the first amendment, which is an
| implementation of the value.
| MrJohz wrote:
| This was not a private gathering, though. This was a public
| conference held by the President of the United States. That
| _is_ the government choosing who is allowed to speak and who
| isn 't.
|
| I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but there are
| certain things that are huge red flags for freedom of press
| and freedom of expression. The government moving against
| press that is critical of it is dangerous. We should always
| be wary when that happens.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| It's exactly that.
| dekoruotas wrote:
| After this meeting I have no doubts that President Krasnov theory
| is real.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| The American government has been compromised by Russia. It no
| longer represents American interests, but Russian interests.
|
| Whether the senior powers in America are compromised, complicit,
| or opportunist, it doesn't matter. America is being damaged.
| Russian interests are being prioritized over American interests.
|
| Our military is too powerful for direct conflict, so alternative
| conflict against our political structure and economy is more
| logical. America is experiencing a decapitation strike, and our
| military is not defending us from these domestic enemies.
| https://archive.is/1xkxK (Decapitation Strike -- Timothy Snyder)
| nico wrote:
| > It no longer represents American interests, but Russian
| interests
|
| And Israeli interests
|
| And that's across pretty much all branches of governments and
| administrations, for quite some time now
|
| American people's needs be damned
| rayiner wrote:
| How does it matter to the "needs" of the american people what
| happens to Ukraine one way or the other?
| JohnBooty wrote:
| If you don't understand why stability in Europe matters to
| America, you might want to read about World War II.
|
| It had a rather pronounced affect on America. Some other
| countries too, I think.
| alephnerd wrote:
| I support Atlanticism, but this overestimates the US's
| need and relations with Europe (EU and non-EU) in the
| 21st century.
|
| Our trade with APAC dwarfs total European trade, and
| America has ~150k armed personnel deployed in the Pacific
| versus ~65k in Europe.
|
| Europe can and should be able to manage Russia and Africa
| for us - this is what they did well until the 2000s. Both
| Dem and Republican admins since the Bush admin have been
| pushing for Europe to regain it's strategic autonomy.
|
| Trump is absolutely mismanaging this relationship, but a
| broken clock is right twice a day.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _this overestimates the US 's need and relations with
| Europe (EU and non-EU) in the 21st century_
|
| If Europe goes to war America is in a higher state of
| defcon even if we try to pretend we're uninvolved. Global
| trade would crash which means a lot of middle class jobs
| vanishing.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Absolutely not denying that at all!
|
| But the perception (even before Trump) was that our
| European allies can and should be able to hold down the
| fort in Europe, because it's increasingly looking like we
| cannot fight a two-continent war, and we at least have
| strategic depth in Europe, and not at all in the Pacific.
| refulgentis wrote:
| One way to avoid a two-continent war is to lend money to
| our European ally to buy weapons from us.
|
| Another way is to sacrifice one continent.
|
| I, and many others, can't stomach the second.
| Particularly when we built their security order, they
| certainly weren't managing Russia for us until the 2000s.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > One way to avoid a two-continent war is to lend money
| to our European ally to buy weapons from us.
|
| I agree and prefer this method, but certain European
| states (looking at you Germany) will also have to
| drastically increase military spending as well.
|
| The pot of military financial aid also needs to go to
| Asian allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New
| Zealand, Taiwan, and Philippines along with aligned
| states like Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and India.
|
| > Another way is to sacrifice one continent
|
| Which I dislike but is something the Trump admin has
| appeared to have chosen.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I think you're a strong interlocutor for a position I
| need to understand more.
|
| - "Our trade with APAC dwarfs total European trade"
|
| I assume we have a shared understanding that more than
| just Europe was affected by WWII.
|
| - "Europe can and should be able to manage Russia and
| Africa for us"
|
| What does manage mean?
|
| - "this is what they did well until the 2000s."
|
| Was America involved in any of the management of Russia
| that went well prior to the 2000s?
|
| - "Both Dem and Republican admins since the Bush admin
| have been pushing for Europe to regain it's strategic
| autonomy."
|
| Europe certainly has strategic autonomy, no?
|
| Overall, my impression is the argument completely elides
| NATO, the US role in it, and the US leadership role in
| it.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > I assume we have a shared understanding that more than
| just Europe was affected by WWII
|
| Absolutely, but they were 2 different wars with entirely
| different personas and leadership.
|
| For example, China and Japan treat WW2 as having started
| in 1936-37 and don't really view or care about WW1 or the
| European theaters of WW2
|
| And European dependencies in Asia were already autonomous
| at that point (eg. British India had it's own autonomous
| military and political leadership after the 1920s era
| reforms independent of London, Dutch Indonesia and it
| 1930s era reforms, and French Indochina as well as they
| largely retained the pre-colonization era leadership).
|
| > What does manage mean
|
| Problems on the European and African continent should be
| dealt with by our European allies. Ideally, the US
| provides some amount of support and armament, but
| strategy within Europe and France should fall onto
| individual European allies.
|
| You saw this in Ukraine pre-2022 with the UK and Turkiye
| helping Ukraine rebuild it's armed forces, and in much of
| the Sahel with French armed forces tamping down on
| Islamism and Russian/Chinese backed factions.
|
| > Europe certainly has strategic autonomy, no
|
| The issue is, what is "Europe".
|
| There needs to be a much stronger unification of posture
| and strategy amongst our European allies, but you would
| often see France and Germany clash because France wants
| to ensure a unified European force has expeditionary
| capabilities (because of French dependencies in the
| Pacific and Africa), but Germany constantly pushes back
| because they want to remain Central Europe first.
|
| On top of that, individual European MICs directly compete
| with each other and extremely furiously. For example,
| Dassault, Eurofighter GmBH, and Saab trying to undercut
| each other in global fighter jet sales.
|
| And finally, individual European states do not see eye to
| eye. For example, France+Italy tends to have a very
| strong co-sell relationship with Israel (a direct
| competitor to Turkiye) and targets the India (a
| competitor to Pakistan) and UAE (a competitor to Saudi)
| market.
|
| But Germany+Spain tends to have a very strong co-sell
| relationship with Turkiye (a direct competitor to
| Israel), who tends to sell to Pakistan (a direct
| competitor to India) and Saudi Arabia (a direct
| competitor to UAE)
|
| While we would all want the EU to be a truly unified
| union, in it's present form, individual nation states
| will continue to zealously guard their soverignity.
|
| And even on the economic front - to use the India example
| due to the plan to finalize the EU-India FTA this year
| [0] - countries like Germany directly compete with
| France+Italy, especially in the Automotive and Pharma
| sectors (two of Europe's largest and most globally
| competitive sectors).
|
| For example, German automotive manufacturers like
| Volkswagen largely invested in China during the 2000s but
| French and Italian manufacturers like Renault,
| Citroen/Stellantis, Leonardo, etc invested in India. An
| EU-India FTA doesn't impact French and Italian
| manufacturers but directly undermines German
| manufacturers.
|
| And Indian biopharma companies are largely partnerships
| with French (Sanofi), British (GSK, AstraZeneca), Swiss
| (Novartis), Israeli (Teva), and Japanese (Takeda) players
| that directly compete with German firms like Bayer and
| Boehringer Ingelheim that invested in China.
|
| While at a macro-level a EU-India FTA is good for
| European autonomy from the US or China, it will undercut
| German companies and benefit French and Italian
| companies, and as such Germany has been lobbying against
| it (and India has retaliated by fining Volkswagen group
| $1.4B in back taxes and an additional $2B in interest [1]
| - an amount that will destroy VG's business in India).
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-eu-agree-
| push-conc...
|
| [1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-
| transportation/india-...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Exactly how were they managing former Yugoslavia let
| alone the other two
| alephnerd wrote:
| UNPROFOR was primarily lead by French, Swedish, and
| Canadian military leadership. KFOR and IFOR was largely
| German and Italian.
|
| Most of the blood, sweat, and tears of the UN and NATO
| intervention in Yugoslavia was European militaries like
| the Dutch, British, French, and Swedish.
|
| The Clinton admin primarily provided air support and
| diplomatic cover, but most boots on the ground were
| European (and Canadian).
|
| Lots of people forget that the UN was in Yugoslavia
| before the NATO intervention happened.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| The EC monitors were first. UNPROFOR was there for
| Croatia initially. The Lisbon agreement in Bosnia in 1992
| was supposed to have things like European judges on the
| constitutional court, which is something that people
| forget when they complain about Dayton. The national
| militaries famously had partiality to different sides of
| the conflict - French and Dutch vs Swedish and British.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Yep, yet nonetheless, it was an European initiative that
| helped solidify "Pan-Europeanism" as a doable initiative
| (it was also during the early stages of the EC turned
| EU).
| dexterdog wrote:
| Without WWII the US would likely have never become the
| world's superpower.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| And without abandoning its allies it would have likely
| remained a superpower going forwards. That's suddenly in
| question.
| encoderer wrote:
| I would argue that we did our bid for European stability,
| that everybody thought Ukraine would be quickly overrun.
| We don't need to defend every inch of Ukrainian soil for
| us to consider it a success and a deterrent. We did far
| more here than Obama did to protect crimea.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I would argue that we did our bid for European stability,
| that everybody thought Ukraine would be quickly overrun.
|
| Have we? I think we've taught Russia and China that they
| can annex whoever they want to annex.
|
| We've taught them that it may or may not come at a high
| price, depending on which party happens to be in power at
| the moment.
| encoderer wrote:
| Yes we raised the stakes considerably. Russia thought the
| Ukraine operation would be over in weeks.
|
| Fast forward a few more years. Russia is encircling Kiev.
| Are we supposed to put American boots on the ground? Give
| them tactical nukes? Wouldn't giving up then just "teach
| them" the same thing?
| empiko wrote:
| Is having a conflict in Ukraine somehow making Europe
| more stable? To be entirely honest, from realpolitik
| point of view what Trump is doing makes cold and
| calculated sense. He will sacrifice Ukraine so that it
| will become a rump buffer state between Europe and
| Russia, and then he can trade with both. That will
| satisfy Russia as well as their strategic goal (no NATO
| in Ukraine) was achieved and they can return to business
| as usual.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| It won't satisfy Russia, though. It will just give a
| thumbs up to them and anyone else wanting to make a land
| grab that they can go ahead and the US will look for
| appeasement. This is exactly the kind of thinking that
| lead to Chamberlain letting Hitler take the Sudetenland
| and Czechoslovakia.
| empiko wrote:
| And there is also hundreds of years of historical
| experience where establishing buffer states worked.
| dboreham wrote:
| Like Belgium.
|
| Oh wait...
| weaksauce wrote:
| > you might want to read about World War II.
|
| you didn't read enough about wwii then. giving putin
| ukraine emboldens him further just like hitler
| xorcist wrote:
| US had interests in the Ukraine because it _was_ a buffer
| state. By sacrificing a whole country to Putin, NATO
| suddenly has enemy neighbors.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine Sweden and
| Finland have joined NATO, so now Russia has more, not
| less, border with NATO. How would a buffer on their
| southwestern border alleviate that?
| vardump wrote:
| Money. US profits immensely from a stable world order.
| Peace and predictability is good for business.
|
| Security guarantees also prevent nuclear proliferation. If
| Ukraine is defeated, the lesson many countries will learn
| is to have a strong nuclear deterrent.
| rayiner wrote:
| How much money? Can you point me to studies that show
| this?
| ziddoap wrote:
| Your debate tactic reminds me of some variation of the
| gish gallop. I thought there was a word for it, but I
| can't find it.
|
| You just ask question after question after question after
| question, with an extremely disproportionate amount of
| effort required between you and the person you are
| asking, and hope that the other side eventually gives up.
|
| Edit: jakelazaroff pinned it down for me, "sealioning"
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| I think GP is probably looking for sealioning:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
| ziddoap wrote:
| That's the one! Thank you.
| torstenvl wrote:
| No. vardump specifically said that the money from
| stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine.
| That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the
| former.
|
| We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only
| missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar
| valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance
| to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion.
|
| If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders
| is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to
| achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money"
| as the reason is insufficient.
| ziddoap wrote:
| I'm referring to their comments in totality, not just
| this one specific example.
| vardump wrote:
| The U.S. failing Ukraine sends a signal you can get away
| with invasions. So it's not just about Ukraine.
|
| The full global consequences can be devastating.
| torstenvl wrote:
| That's what "deterrence value" means.
| vardump wrote:
| Say it results in a global nuclear war. That might be the
| worst case scenario.
|
| What's the dollar value of that?
| rayiner wrote:
| If "interests" means something concrete it shouldn't take
| a lot of effort to explain what it means. To me it seems
| like the word is used to avoid acknowledging that
| "there's no there, there."
| ziddoap wrote:
| You do this same tactic in every political thread I've
| seen your name pop up in from as early as I can remember
| recognizing your name on this site.
|
| Sometimes your questions seem legitimate. Often they
| don't (they might be! but they don't read so).
|
| But, this is probably getting a bit too meta and off-
| topic. Sorry for the derailment.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Here, I have just the thing, a study of how much it
| ultimately costs to appease belligerent European powers:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
|
| Now remember that this time everyone has nukes.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Enough that it makes Trump very upset whenever another
| country talks about using a reserve currency other than
| the dollar. Why would you need studies when you have the
| leader's own words?
| wwweston wrote:
| You need _studies_ to show that peace & stability
| support greater productivity and wealth?
|
| Likely as it is that research can indeed confirm this,
| given the depth & tone of your inquiry, perhaps the most
| immediate convincing experiment would be best: find
| someone you can employ to harass and threaten your
| property and your person, occasionally to devastating
| effect, alongside another person who can study your
| productivity and wealth before and after.
|
| Perhaps with further similar efforts here you can even
| persuade some people to volunteer for half of that
| project free of charge.
| vuln wrote:
| The US profits off war. War is the easiest way to
| stimulate the economy.
| empiricus wrote:
| But is it though?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| That depends. It was true of WW2, but that had a unique
| set of circumstances. The US economy performed much
| better in the 90s, after the end of the Cold War, then it
| did in the 2000s with the invasions of Iraq/Afghan
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Why does it matter to the American people what happens to
| Poland in WW2?
|
| Do you think we exist in a vacuum? The whole reason we have
| foreign policy is because there are major dire
| ramifications to conflicts across the world. Especially, as
| we've seen the past century, in Europe.
| rayiner wrote:
| Is Ukraine like Poland, or more like Korea, Vietnam,
| Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
| svariello wrote:
| Very different type of war... Especially Vietnam, Iraq
| and Afghanistan...
| svachalek wrote:
| What is the basis of this analogy? Is it implying that
| the difference between North Korea and South Korea is
| negligible to the world?
| ForOldHack wrote:
| Ukraine checks all the boxes for exploration by
| Oligarchs, North Korea does not. Kuwait had oil, Iraq
| attentive wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| No personal attacks, please, regardless of how wrong
| someone is or you feel they are.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Look, the fact that you guys came here to Europe and
| liberate us from the nazi Germany, then you defeated Japan,
| made you a global superpower because you effectively won
| the war. You have been in this position since the war until
| 20th of January this year. Trump is actively removing USA
| from the position of the leader. Talking about leaving
| NATO, removing soldiers from Europe, ... something that
| took decades to establish takes weeks to destroy.
|
| What's next? "TSMC give us all trade secrets or we don't
| defend Taiwan"?
|
| You have all there benefited from these decades of being in
| that position.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Thats like asking, who cares if a drug dealer moves next
| door, he/she is not in your house.
| rayiner wrote:
| Okay, we're getting closer to a real point. Why do I care
| about a drug dealer taking over the house next to him
| when both houses are in another state?
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Because him taking over a house gives him access to
| resources which he can use to build up strength,
| unchecked, and before you know it, the state next to you
| is involved in serious tumroil that affects your job,
| getting certain products, and so on.
|
| And next thing you know, people who directly work for
| that drug dealer are all in your states government, and
| your way of life is slowly starting to get worse, and the
| only option you have is either go along and be constantly
| afraid, or revolt and risk of losing your life.
|
| If you dont think it can happen, i envy your ignorance.
| exe34 wrote:
| that drug dealer has managed to make the executive of the
| federal government act as if they work for him.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| because the world is highly interconnected and it's much
| more expensive to deal with the results of instability than
| it is to try to prevent the instability in the first place
| rayiner wrote:
| So you think Kissinger and all the GOP neocons for
| decades were actually correct?
|
| I thought we had discredited that whole ideology--from
| Kissinger to Bush--but apparently we haven't.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| We are more interconnected, and Kissinger and the GOP
| agreed with this, but they are just evil German Socialist
| Democratic Party. His observation is well taken, but its
| a false flag to equate it with the _entire_ neocon,
| unalive and steal at any cost philosophy:
|
| They are not the same: Clearly they are not the same.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30iht-
| edkissinger...
| kristjansson wrote:
| You're a very smart guy. You can't seriously be wondering
| how allowing a major power to wage and win a war of
| aggression in Europe might be contrary to American
| interests? He'll surely be appeased by the Donbas and stop
| there, right?
| rayiner wrote:
| I am a smart guy--which is why even as a college student
| I knew the Iraq War was going to be a monumental cluster
| fuck.
|
| To me, it seems like the people supporting American
| involvement in Ukraine are throwing about the same vague
| platitudes about "dictators" and "interests" without
| anything concrete to back them up.
|
| At least Iraq and its neighbors had oil--there was a
| credible narrative that what happened there would
| directly hit Americans in their pocket books. American
| interest in Europe seems even more attenuated. It seems
| to be nothing more than romantic sympathy.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Fundamentally different situation. A more appropriate
| comparison would be the first Gulf War, when the US
| helped to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Equating the later
| Iraq war with the situation in Ukraine is a category
| error.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Don't let Mr /r/iamverysmart duck the question about
| Donbas by diverting into a conversation about Iraq.
| rayiner wrote:
| I agree the first gulf war is a better comparison. In our
| household we thought Bush was wrong about that too, and I
| recall my dad being quite happy he lost reelection over
| it. I'd argue it set us up to get roped in for Round 2.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Crimea is the better comparison. The US appeased Russia
| on Crimea in 2014 (the sanctions were too weak) and it
| caused the Ukraine invasion in 2022. Why would appeasing
| on Donbas in 2025 work better?
| lostdog wrote:
| The U.S. is strong because of our own power, but also
| because of our many many friends with a shared worldview.
| We use the word "interests" to cover how our friends help
| us in every situation, big or small.
|
| For example, the US needs many raw materials and
| manufactured goods. Our economy is extremely strong
| because we get these easily and with little friction.
| Other countries trust our trade deals so they enter into
| them willingly. And so whenever the US needs a new
| import, we get it quickly and cheaply. As a concrete
| example, NVidia gets prime access to foundries and
| components. Sure, they spend money on it, but our
| "interests" ensure that the process is frictionless. Any
| other country would have a harder time.
|
| We also have near universal military access. No other
| country even comes close. We nearly have permission in
| advance to go anywhere. If US shipping is interrupted, no
| one complains when our navy goes and uninterrupted it. In
| fact we are welcomed. If a US citizen is taking hostage,
| governments from the area want to help us.
|
| Also, maybe you've noticed that no one is even close to
| attacking the US. We are so strong that it would be
| suicide, and that's partly because of our own strength,
| but also because of our many allies who would back us up.
|
| Finally, we have moral interests. I believe everyone
| should live in a system based on laws, should elect their
| own leaders, and should have basic freedoms. The more we
| spread liberalism and democracy the better the world is.
|
| Sure, you can nitpick about counterexamples. The Iraq war
| is a perfect example of messing this up. And not every
| country loves us.
|
| But if you cannot see that the majority of countries are
| overwhelmingly friendly towards the US, and that we get
| enormous military and economic benefits, then you are
| blind.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| You shouldn't let someone bait you into tangent town like
| rayiner just did. He was posed a sharp question ("Will
| Putin stop at Donbas?") and he ducked it for a reason.
| lostdog wrote:
| I know rayiner is a troll who misunderstands things on
| purpose. Defining "interests" seemed like a fun exercise.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| Fair, so long as you remember to practice framing / flow
| control elsewhere. Don't forget leg day!
| rayiner wrote:
| > The U.S. is strong because of our own power, but also
| because of our many many friends with a shared worldview
|
| You're starting off on the wrong foot. That's just
| Reagan-Bush universalism and everyone who bought into
| that stupid ideology has been wrong about everything my
| entire lifetime.
|
| The way you say it, the Iraq War was simply poor
| execution of a basically sound ideology. To the contrary,
| the Iraq War was a predictable outcome of the notion that
| democracy promotion is in America's material interest, or
| that it's worth our while to police borders around the
| world. That's a bad idea, rooted in a Christian/post-
| Christian version of the Ummah and the Iraq War should
| have discredited that ideology. If you continue to buy
| into those mistaken premises, a repeat of
| Iraq/Vietnam/Korea is inevitable.
| kristjansson wrote:
| So you really think the world as we know it works just
| fine if everyone defends their own borders and attacks
| their neighbors' at will?
| lostdog wrote:
| > You're starting off on the wrong foot. That's just
| Reagan-Bush universalism and everyone who bought into
| that stupid ideology has been wrong about everything my
| entire lifetime.
|
| This doesn't respond to my comment at all. You're just
| calling stuff stupid.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| > everyone who bought into that stupid ideology has been
| wrong about everything my entire lifetime
|
| In 2014, McCain absolutely nailed his prediction on
| Ukraine 2022. Did you?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8
| kristjansson wrote:
| Iraq is not the correct analogy. Iraq put us a bit over
| our skis attempting to enforce our desired norms while
| entertaining some acquisitive impulses against an
| inferior opponent with ultimately limited aims. i.e.
| Saddam wasn't interested in taking over the world.
|
| The conclusion to draw from that is not that all conflict
| and cruelty outside the New World is irrelevant to
| Americans and their interests. You're a bit older than
| me, but neither of us have experienced a world with a
| truly aggressive near-peer power. We've lived our entire
| lives on the laurels of our grandfathers' victories in
| Europe and Asia. The resulting international system
| organized around fixed borders, the rule of law, and low
| barriers has allowed to flourish the multitude of
| mutually beneficial trade relationships that support
| literally the entirety of the only way of life either of
| has ever known.
|
| It's an unstable equilibrium. To not defend order against
| might risks knocking the whole thing down - and then who
| knows? Maybe we carry on with China and the rest of APAC
| while Russia dominates Europe? Maybe we live a decade or
| a generation of poorer, meaner, more isolated lives
| confined to the New World? Maybe the expansionary impulse
| brings them, eventually, to our shores?
| danielovichdk wrote:
| It should perhaps be of american interest to support its
| allies. As its allies did to support the so-called war on
| terrorism with Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
| Those two wars imo changed USA and put the country in
| debt and misalignment internally. Bush was an absolute
| catastrophy.
|
| You can't point the fingers at the leaders. Even though
| the country is not a democracy, but a business club with
| only two parties, being funded by companies.
|
| USA is no longer, and hasn't been for decades, very far
| from Russia in its cribbled walk towards war and
| destruction.
|
| I can't see how the country can uphold its stance with
| their allies and when China makes their move, it will
| leave US on its own.
|
| As for Europe, it might be a slow starter, but rather
| that than having to fight for even then smallest equality
| rights and options.
|
| Wow, how I really dislike american politics and
| leadership, and its not just its current government.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Bibi's interests != Israeli interests
| munk-a wrote:
| Israel is going to need to be a lot more internationally
| vocal if they disapprove of Bibi. I know the majority of
| american folks of jewish descent disapprove of Bibi's
| actions but his polling in Israel is a lot less
| unfavorable.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| There have been many enormous protests against him in
| Israel, where a large part of the country regards him as
| corrupt and ineffectual (though not everyone agrees on
| why, eg left and right would like him to be less and more
| militaristic). But these protests get little coverage in
| US news media. Mind you I don't think this is peculiar to
| Israel, foreign affairs coverage in the US is just
| generally dreadful, partly because many Americans just do
| not care about the rest of the world.
| rozap wrote:
| [citation needed]
| eunos wrote:
| For all intents and purposes Bibi is the elected Prime
| Minister of Israel across several elections.
|
| Trying to simply say their interest diverge sounds
| irresponsible.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Did you notice that you are replying to a top-level post
| which accuses the twice elected president of the USA of
| acting against American interests?
|
| "Having a democratic mandate" is either a valid
| counterargument or it is not. But it is simply not
| consistent to apply it only to Netanyahu and not to
| Trump.
| eunos wrote:
| Likewiwe I'm applying it to Trump, Starmer, Macron or
| even Xi and Putin.
|
| The point is that I'm tired of the electorate washing
| their hands from their leaders' antic. Society get the
| leader they deserve.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| people have been saying that for 20 years, and yet, Bibi is
| still there
| kombine wrote:
| Most Israelis are fully aligned on what Bibi has been
| doing. Sure, they like to say that they hate him to
| maintain decency, but when it comes to his actual policies
| on Palestinians, 90% of Israelis are fully on board.
| hector126 wrote:
| Correct. My understanding is that there's no individual lobby
| group in America with more influence on foreign policy than
| AIPAC.
|
| The book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a great
| read which fairly and methodically outlines how this
| influence works and what effects it's had on American policy,
| spanning decades.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| Israel has never successfully blackmailed the sitting U.S.
| President.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| How would we know? If they're _really_ successful about
| it, wouldn 't it look something like, say, ~2 years of
| almost complete inaction while Israel flattens Gaza?
| Chance-Device wrote:
| I think "how would we know" is actually a pretty good
| point. I do also find Israel's outsized influence on the
| US inexplicable.
| TylerE wrote:
| It's not really inexplicable. Looking into
| evangelicalism.
| FeloniousHam wrote:
| Israel is a solitary, functioning, modern liberal
| democracy surrounded by repressive, autocratic states.
| Until about a minute ago, supporting liberal democracy
| was important to all US administrations.
|
| The people of the US are (until maybe(?) a minute ago)
| largely supportive of Israel. Partly because of a
| (relatively) large and visible Jewish population (THANK
| YOU EUROPE!), and partly because it has been a majority
| Protestant Christian nation with an affinity God's Chosen
| People.
|
| You don't need to go all QAnon to figure this out.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| > Israel is a solitary, functioning, modern liberal
| democracy surrounded by repressive, autocratic states.
| Until about a minute ago, supporting liberal democracy
| was important to all US administrations.
|
| IDK about functioning or modern or liberal, but the rest
| seems about right.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I see your point, but to the parent's point, they've
| never done so _so comprehensively_ that they no longer
| need to do so secretly.
| hector126 wrote:
| That's very likely the case, though I don't think either
| of us have the details to make that assertion
| confidently. My comment was only in regards to lobby
| groups which operate freely on US soil staffed mostly by
| Americans.
|
| Were there an analogous "ARPAC" which lobbied for Russian
| interests I imagine it would be under an immense amount
| of scrutiny.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| What was Biden's ineffectuality about then?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Every single poll during the Gaza war has shown majority
| support from Americans that "israel has a right to defend
| itself" and "the US should support israel until the
| hostages are returned".
|
| I don't understand why people think it's a conspiracy
| theory that Americans are fine with Israel bombing
| innocent brown people in the desert, since we did that
| ourselves for 20 years on the back of actual lies and a
| general hatred of Islam that is still here today, where
| we have re-elected the guy who made a literal muslim ban,
| and still insist that islam is a threat through
| "migrants".
|
| Americans have very little empathy for brown people in
| the middle east. Israel has a much more "westernized"
| vibe for Americans, so of course they can empathize with
| them more. Remember that any American over the age of 20
| have seen MULTIPLE TIMES that there was "relative calm"
| and then Hamas started killing innocent jewish people. If
| you are older, you remember when all these countries
| openly called for the extermination of Israel as explicit
| foreign policy.
|
| As of a few days ago, 33% of DEMOCRATS still see israel
| in a _positive_ light
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/657125/views-israel-ukraine-
| mex...
|
| You can argue that the AIPAC influences _american 's
| opinion_, but it is actual american reported opinion that
| we should support Israel in their extermination of
| "terrorists".
| colordrops wrote:
| You have zero evidence for such a strong statement. Most
| blackmail goes undetected, so there's no way to say this
| confidently.
| anotherhue wrote:
| Let's wait to see what that golden pager does.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It'd be hilarious if it were a passive listening device
| like The Thing, but Trump seems so attention-hungry and
| security-oblivious that you could probably just leave a
| big microphone on his desk like an old-timey chat show.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device
| )
| rdtsc wrote:
| I thought of that, too. Surely they wouldn't be that
| bold, but then again, it's such an obviously crazy idea
| that it might just work.
| throw787878 wrote:
| Oh really? Then why did Clinton log 26 flights on
| Epstein's Lolita Express?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| All 26 Clinton flights were _after_ the Presidency.
|
| Trump's flights on the same plane were pre-Presidency.
| (As was their friendship, and their being close
| neighbors.)
| vuln wrote:
| > Trump's flights on the same plane were pre-Presidency.
| (As was their friendship, and their being close
| neighbors.)
|
| Their friendship was over when Trump banned him from mar-
| a-lago 2007 and then worked with prosecutors and provided
| information against Epstein in 2008.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Trump's claim to have banned him from Mar-a-Lago is as
| credible as his claim to be able to end the Ukraine war
| 24 hours after his election.
| vuln wrote:
| If you have any information or evidence of the claim that
| he did not in fact ban Epstein. I would love to read it.
| Without evidence I'll just assume this is your opinion.
| It's not hard to see your motive by the way you presented
| the information in your previous comment. Presenting
| opinions as fact is not necessary and doesn't add to the
| conversation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Sure. The WaPo says the only evidence for that claim is
| Trump asserting it. https://archive.is/XK0A7
|
| > Trump has also said -- without providing details --
| that he at some point banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago.
|
| I am generally not inclined to take the man at his word.
|
| It also notes that, if the breakup happened, it was
| likely over a piece of real estate.
| convolvatron wrote:
| instead of arguing about who is the worst rapist, maybe
| we could try to stop electing rapists in general?
| shihab wrote:
| I wonder how many Americans know about the night when
| Kissinger et al activated entire US military, incl
| nuclear forces, just so some soviet weapons wouldn't
| reach Egypt during Israel's Yum kippur war- all while
| Nixon slept. Soviet union was so taken aback, they
| immediately folded. Of course they would, they treated
| this thing like a minor regional conflict thousands miles
| away from home. Their mistake was believing American govt
| would do the same.
|
| Source- Kissinger: A Biography by Walter Isaacson
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Well, usually the story told to counter this is that he
| said that Israel wouldn't get one bullet until Egypt
| blockaded Straits of Tiran. Kissinger didn't exactly have
| a track record of saying philo-Semitic things.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Or about the USS Liberty. A US navy ship that was
| destroyed by the Israelis. Israel said it was a case of
| mistaken identity and President Johnson accepted that
| explanation. Admiral Moorer, the 7th chairman of the
| Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused President Lyndon B.
| Johnson of having covered up that the attack was a
| deliberate act.
| rdtsc wrote:
| And who has?
| dboreham wrote:
| I've read at least one book that argued otherwise.
| rozap wrote:
| This book was incredibly hard for me to read. It was well
| written, well cited, and nothing it said was wrong. But it
| was like doomscrolling in book form. It left me feeling
| hopeless.
| theoryofx wrote:
| Your statement doesn't make sense.
|
| Most Americans do support Israel and are very opposed to
| Putin and Russia.
|
| Check the polls.
|
| Which is why it's suspicious that JD Vance and Trump seem so
| afraid to upset Putin.
|
| The idea that Russsia could have compromising information on
| one or both of them is entirely plausible. It's a way
| politicians have been controlled for literally thousands of
| years. J. Edgar Hoover controlled every US president for
| fifty years with this one simple trick.
| rayiner wrote:
| Most people also want a negotiated end to the war:
| https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2025/02/HHP...
|
| Americans aren't wiling to invest in what it would take to
| win the war. So Trump has to break Zelensky's spirit so
| there can be a settlement.
| brookst wrote:
| That may be the game theory, but the reality is it will
| galvanize non-US support for Ukraine while further
| isolating the US from historic allies.
|
| Europe cannot let Putin win. It's obvious that Poland or
| the Baltics would be next, and the further they let Putin
| go the worse it gets.
|
| So instead, the US will either be neutral or supporting
| Russia. Not a great outcome for anyone except Russia.
| rayiner wrote:
| It's a great outcome for americans, who don't care what
| happens in europe. If europe could handle its own
| business Trump and his voters would be thrilled.
| xorcist wrote:
| And the US did not have interests in Ukraine? As if the
| past two decades never happened?
| rayiner wrote:
| The US had no interests in Ukraine, it had no interest in
| Iraq, it had no interest in Kuwait, it had no interest in
| Vietnam, etc.
|
| Ukraine was a member of the Soviet Union since 1917. Was
| it hurting America to not have Ukraine as an "ally" that
| whole time? Clearly not!
| creato wrote:
| It would be understandable to step back from Ukraine.
| There's a reasonable argument to be made there. I
| disagree, but I can understand the position.
|
| It's not understandable to support Russia and say things
| like Ukraine started the war. That's just pure ignorant
| bullshit.
| treis wrote:
| >It's obvious that Poland or the Baltics would be next,
| and the further they let Putin go the worse it gets.
|
| Poland would wipe the floor with Russia.
| watwut wrote:
| Americans are supporting Russia now. Not just not helping
| Ukraine to save money. USA leadership is actively and
| openly supporting Russia.
|
| USA does not have to do that, USA want to do that. They
| could stay away, they could support Ukraine. USA choice
| however was to support Russia.
| munk-a wrote:
| There are several (and a few directly conflicting) polls
| in that document which I think reflects realty - most
| people haven't come down hard on stances involving
| Ukraine and remain flexible. As an example: "Do you favor
| or oppose Donald Trump announcing direct U.S.-Russia
| negotiations to end the war in Ukraine?" 60% in favor,
| but "Do you favor or oppose the Trump administration
| leaving Ukraine's leaders out of negotiations with Russia
| to end the war in Ukraine?" 41% in favor. Additionally
| 57% oppose territorial concessions (which Trump has
| forced to be on the table) and 66% favor US security
| guarantees (which Trump has so far demurred on and tried
| to foist off onto the EU).
|
| To me, at least, it's pretty clear that the negotiations
| are not in line with the will of the American populace as
| territorial concessions, resource concessions, no
| security guarantees and no multi-lateral opposition force
| to Russian expansionism have seemed like priorities to
| the current administration.
| ericmay wrote:
| Agreed - most people would basically like to see an end
| to the war, which is what is broadly envisioned by a
| "negotiated end to the war".
|
| But I'd question your assumption that Americans aren't
| willing to invest what it would take to win the war
| (depending on what a victory entails) and instead I'd
| suggest that this assumption needs a bit more research. I
| for one am very happy to see our tax dollars be used to
| support Ukraine, primarily because I think it's an
| investment in preventing a more expensive war in the
| future. It's unfortunate because we are basically just
| incurring a cost we didn't want to incur, but at the end
| of the day this is just the hand we're dealt with.
| vFunct wrote:
| Harvard-Harris poll have a well known right wing bias,
| enough so that Harvard students are calling to
| disassociate from them. They're especially flagrant in
| how they lead on the poll respondents. For example, they
| use Israel vs Hamas instead of Israel vs Palestinenin
| their poll questions.
|
| A more neutral and far more informative and useful poll
| is YouGov-Economist poll. Their methodology is based on
| app polling instead of phone polling. They subdivide
| their responses based on demographics, and they poll
| every week, often repeating the same questions to gauge
| trends for very detailed analysis.
|
| Wish more pollsters were like YouGov.
| shihab wrote:
| 61% Americans opposed sending weapons to Israel. They got
| sent anyway [1]. Similarly at world stage, American govt
| had to bring out the veto card 49 times in Israel's
| defense- it was alone against the world, even all of it's
| strongest European allies [2].
|
| [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/740568401/Cbsnews-20240
| 609-S.... Question No 52.
|
| [2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/49-times-us-has-
| used-veto...
| theoryofx wrote:
| Neither of these points contradict the fact that
| Americans very broadly support Israel and are opposed to
| Putin and Russia. Of course there are varying degrees of
| support on any specific issue.
|
| Yes, the UN has attempted many more resolutions against
| Israel than against China for its treatment of millions
| of Uyghurs, North Korea for enslaving its entire
| population, Russia for murdering tens of thousands, Iran
| for its direct terrorism, and the list goes on. Which is
| not exactly the ethical high ground you seem to think it
| is.
| skyyler wrote:
| >Yes, the UN has attempted many more resolutions against
| Israel than against China for its treatment of millions
| of Uyghurs, North Korea for enslaving its entire
| population, Russia for murdering tens of thousands, Iran
| for its direct terrorism, and the list goes on. Which is
| not exactly the ethical high ground you seem to think it
| is.
|
| Whataboutism.
|
| When China starts bombing hospitals, let us know.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-
| isra...
|
| Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza
|
| Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November
| mcv wrote:
| The US siding unconditionally with Israel is nothing new. The
| US siding with Russia against democratic allies is absolutely
| new.
|
| And even then, I don't think any US president ever treated
| any leader in such a disgraceful manner. Not only heads of
| state, even the Taliban got a ton more respect (probably too
| much) than this.
|
| Of course we already knew that Trump liked dictators and
| tyrants, and disrespects any form of decency, but now that
| the masks are truly coming off, what's underneath them is a
| lot more ugly than I could possibly imagine.
| akharris wrote:
| The overall tenor of this thread, and this comment in
| particular, is diving right into deep conspiracy theory
| territory.
|
| There's a huge difference between supporting an ally with
| common interests and being somehow controlled by them.
|
| The idea that Israel - or AIPAC - is somehow in control of
| the US government is straight out of the Protocols of the
| Elders of Zion.
| hector126 wrote:
| There have been many books written on the subject, as in my
| previous comment, I suggested The Israel Lobby and U.S.
| Foreign Policy.
|
| It's not antisemitic or even remotely conspiratorial to
| acknowledge that Israel and Israeli-Americans have been
| very successful in exerting influence on the federal
| government. I think it's bad-faith well-poisoning for you
| to bring up nonsense like the Protocols.
| akharris wrote:
| Much as I'd love to debate you about this here, I don't
| think either of us will convince the other - or anyone
| else - in this format.
|
| Always happy to have a real conversation about difficult
| issues.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| You need to re-frame the US/Israel alliance. Right now, it
| is more a far right alliance between Trump and Netanyahu.
| It's no longer about either of the states involved or the
| interactions they may have had in the past.
|
| And to be extremely clear, because it's very likely someone
| will reply to claim antisemitism - I have a problem with
| Netanyahu and what Israel does under his leadership. I do
| not have a problem with people who identify as Jewish,
| ethnically or religiously.
| TylerE wrote:
| Not said as a joke: It isn't a conspiracy if they actually
| are out to get you. I am seeing my country go down in a
| blaze of corruption in front of my very eyes.
| 7952 wrote:
| I agree. Although we should not downplay how vulnerable
| democracy can be to outside influence. And that can have
| significant negative consequences. Particularly as things
| like "national interest" are so debatable.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| I agree this is unproven conspiracy theory BS, but there
| are a great many conspiracy theories being espoused in this
| post. I'm curious why it is only this one you saw fit to
| call out?
| kombine wrote:
| > The idea that Israel - or AIPAC - is somehow in control
| of the US government is straight out of the Protocols of
| the Elders of Zion.
|
| Not sure why you bring this up, but the facts are very
| clear. Previous US administration broke its own laws that
| prohibit them to supply weapons to parties engaged in gross
| violations of human rights and war crimes. Among many
| things, AIPAC even unsit a Jewish(!) congressman whose only
| crime was to mention that Palestinians deserve human rights
| and dignity.
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| Israelis will be in for a very bad after backing and helping
| russia. They forgot too quickly how jews have been treated
| there.
| macinjosh wrote:
| How does footing the bill for a futile war in a country that
| the US has nothing to do with meet the needs of Americans?
| outside2344 wrote:
| Or whatever interests have compromised or bribed the
| administration
| lostlogin wrote:
| Surely that points towards Russia? What are you suggesting?
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I read that as currently but not solely or always Russia.
| hightrix wrote:
| I assume the insinuation is of Musk buying the presidency.
| threeseed wrote:
| Which he unquestionably has. Look at what is happening
| with FAA and Verizon.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Consider there are interests in common between sectors in
| Russia and the USA that are not at the state level, but
| private capital.
|
| In particular, both nations are energy exporters. And the
| political class in Russia is explicitly a petro-regime.
|
| There's no need to go looking for conspiracy theories
| around Trump being "compromised."
|
| He's behaving just like any wealthy person with ties to the
| energy sector would, should they seize state power. They
| are acting in the interests of the oil industry, both of
| them.
|
| Capitalism doesn't really have borders. Borders are for
| chumps like you and I.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| Russia seems to own the far right mindspace to a large degree,
| and I'm sure they've spent a large amount of resources for many
| years shaping those perspectives and narratives to suit
| themselves.
|
| I also suspect that Russia has been causing the very problems
| that the far right reacts against, most notably immigration.
| Remember wirecard? Germany's fintech darling, which was run by
| Jan Marsalek, who turned out to be a Russian spy? What was one
| of the things they were doing? Funding people smuggling into
| Europe. To strengthen the right that Russia owns.
|
| https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-wirecard-marsalek-spy/32844...
|
| They've been directly disrupting the west while controlling
| those who offer the "solution".
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Checks out - Russia is the country you end up with when you
| have the far right's ideology.
| spwa4 wrote:
| I don't understand why the focus on one side? Russia was
| caught financing extreme-left parties, religious parties
| (including hamas, isis and hezbollah), conservative parties
| (moderate and extreme), rebels, terrorists ...
|
| Certainly seems Russia has no ideology they care about
| beyond "sabotage states", with some priority on western
| states, but certainly not just western states. They fund
| political parties in ex-Yugoslavia that are LITERALLY at
| each other's throats (with knives and guns, not with
| protests and shouting).
|
| They're sowing chaos wherever they can, however they can.
| Priority seems to be on the UK, Brussels/EU and the US, but
| it's not like they're not doing it in places like Rwanda as
| well. Whether that means supporting extreme-left, extreme
| right, or just whoever is willing to turn guns on the
| police or some ethnic group they hate, Russia/Putin just
| doesn't care.
|
| Hell, daesh/isis got funding from Russia, killed 145
| Russians in Moscow ... and Russia funded them again, after
| blaming Ukraine for the attack. They just don't care.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| Trump represents a short term "win" for Russia, but Russia in
| the medium/long term is as screwed as you can be as a
| country.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| I bet you can do a lot of damage in 4 years. Not to mention
| if Trump tries to run for an unconstitutional 3rd term.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| You actually think there are going to be elections again?
| thijsvandien wrote:
| Why not? Russia has elections too.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| touche!
| doublerabbit wrote:
| With what David Cameron and Boris Johnston did with us in
| the uk. Brexit. A lot in four years.
|
| Labour is doing no better.
| pas wrote:
| Extractive systems quickly ratchet up their time
| discounting factor, meaning if it's possible to steal
| something sooner with a bit of aggression than later
| without, the former will happen usually. (And usually only
| external forces limit this process.)
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Also the Muslim refugees flooding Europe crisis has largely
| been a result of the Syrian civil war, with Russia being the
| main and mostly only ally of Bashar al-Assad. Supposedly,
| motivation there was Putin not wanting to lose his only ally
| in the region left after Gaddafi was murdered, not so much an
| intentional effort to destabilize Europe, but hey, it worked
| out, I guess.
| jisnsm wrote:
| Yeah... who dares interfere with US intervention of a
| country?!
| pineaux wrote:
| russia voted for or abstained from voting about the
| intervention in Libya if i remember correctly
| Chance-Device wrote:
| What's the phrase, never let a good crisis go to waste?
| pan69 wrote:
| Didn't the disintegration of Libya also not play a big part
| to start the refugee crisis? Someone explained to me once
| that once Gaddafi was gone and Libya became a fractured
| state, that it essentially became a refugee gateway into
| the Mediterranean as previously that "band" of North
| African countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and
| Egypt) where acting as a buffer preventing refugees from
| African countries to move Northwards.
| submeta wrote:
| It was qctually Israel that wanted to destroy an ally of
| Iran and weaken Iran. Russia was only defending his ally.
| It was not driving the conflict.
| somanyphotons wrote:
| I think it's because the really wanted to keep their navy
| base in syria
| nradov wrote:
| Russia had both a navy base and an air base in Syria.
| They used the navy base to project power into the
| Mediterranean Sea and the air base to protect power into
| Africa (Wagner Group logistics, and air cargo transport
| of cash bribes and conflict minerals).
| sophacles wrote:
| That's the same thing.
| orloffm wrote:
| The refugees started coming months before Russia's
| involvement, after the organized campaign with the pictures
| of a dead young boy on the shore.
| xorcist wrote:
| Before that there was the drawn out conflicts in Iraq and
| Afghanistan. The amount of refugees was staggering.
|
| Do take the time to check the facts sometime where those
| refugees ended up. How many did Germany accept? How many
| did Sweden take? How many did the US accept?
|
| It does put the recent claims that Europe should pay up for
| its protection into perspective.
| echelon wrote:
| Does anyone have any information on the whole "Krasnov"
| claim, whereby Trump was supposedly recruited by the KGB in
| the 80's and given the designation "Krasnov"?
| triyambakam wrote:
| https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's pointless to ask. Either you believe the story or you
| don't, but it's not like you can send a FOIA request to the
| FSB. It's doomed to remain a single-source allegation, even
| though I find the claim plausible.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| As plausible as the pee tape?
| margalabargala wrote:
| No one is going to comment here wit any information that
| isn't trivially findable via google.
| Muromec wrote:
| It would be beneficial to russia to spread such claims to
| sabotage US even further even if it's not real. The problem
| right now -- you can't be 100% sure that it's not. It was
| believable even before the claim was made.
| dboreham wrote:
| There have been multiple books written about this, leaks
| from MI6, etc etc. It's not at all new and doesn't seem to
| have been debunked, just kind of glossed over.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Absolutely no way it can be proven. However, the actions of
| "Krasnov" certainly seem to point in that direction.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Thought experiment: Compare three scenarios, in which:
|
| A Trump is not in any way beholden to Russia
|
| B Trump has prospective business interests in Russia
|
| C Trump follows Russian orders even at the cost of US
| interests
|
| Which of these most easily explains the actual behavior we
| see?
| pydry wrote:
| I was expecting something like this to happen in 2023
| after the catastrophic summer offensive. That was when it
| became abundantly clear that Ukraine was losing the war.
| There wasnt even a viable _plan_ for victory after that
| it was just... keep giving weapons and keep those fingers
| crossed.
|
| For Trump this is about washing his hands of a war that
| he understands cannot be won and will become an albatross
| around his neck if he doesnt disengage.
|
| A makes complete sense if you have a full picture of the
| military industrial situation, but in the west there is
| very little cognizance of just how _badly_ Ukraine is
| losing not how limited western options are.
|
| "Krasov" is an appealing explanation because it means not
| facing this bitter reality.
| echelon wrote:
| Three years on and Ukraine is still holding its own.
| There's no reason this couldn't become Russia's
| Afghanistan 2.0.
|
| Moreover, Ukraine's rules of engagement have been
| severely limited. They've been unable to strike airfields
| inside Russia even though they have the capacity to do
| so.
| pydry wrote:
| It's really not holding its own. The military situation
| is _dire_. Budanov accidentally let slip that they can
| keep going for another 6 months...1 month ago. That 's
| probably about when a catastrophic line collapse will
| occur, if not sooner.
|
| It's unlikely to become another Afghanistan because A) it
| does not have Afghanistan's superlative geography for hit
| and run attacks on supply chains and B) coz this war
| burned through Ukraine's best troops such that now mostly
| all they have left are TCC-kidnapped soldiers who would
| rather submit to Russia than fight.
| thuridas wrote:
| Even if Trump seems to behave like in case C there could
| be others like
|
| D Russia can blackmail Trump
|
| E Russia pay Trump to act in favour of of Russia even at
| the cost of US interest.
| moritz64 wrote:
| I find it interesting how the Russian news agency TASS
| quotes the presidential aide of Russia:
|
| "The election campaign is over," Patrushev noted. "To
| achieve success in the election, Donald Trump relied on
| certain forces to which he has corresponding obligations.
| As a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill
| them."
|
| https://tass.com/politics/1870713/amp
| triyambakam wrote:
| I'm skeptical that it is only the Right. Maybe predominantly,
| or more explicitly, but anyone wanting power and control on
| either side would want to sell themselves out, too.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| Oh, you mean people like Jill Stein? Sure. Notably, she has
| never been part of the mainstream left.
|
| https://archive.thinkprogress.org/jill-stein-campaign-
| russia...
|
| https://www.salon.com/2024/09/23/jill-stein-
| paid-100000-to-a...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-
| security/russians-...
|
| https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/why-
| jill-s...
| sReinwald wrote:
| It is not only targeting the Right. I'd suggest that Russia
| isn't primarily interested in bolstering the right
| specifically. They are interested in dividing national
| societies as well international alliances along any
| possible ideological issue, effectively shattering the
| entire thing - divide et impera.
|
| You can see some indication of this in the Mueller report
| on Russia's election interference in the US, and the DOJ
| indictment against Prigozhin and his Internet Research
| Agency troll factory. They kept playing both sides: pushing
| Facebook groups that were strong pro racial justice & BLM
| while also pushing pro cop / back the blue Facebook groups.
| At some point, they scheduled protests for both sides of
| this particular issue at the same time and place, clearly
| hoping for altercations.
|
| But I think it's safe to say that, at least in the US,
| their efforts seem to have mainly focused on the Republican
| side. However, here in Germany, both the populist far-right
| AfD and the populist far-left political Party BSW around
| former Linke politician Sarah Wagenknecht are very much
| aligned with Russian interests:
| https://www.dw.com/en/russias-best-friends-in-germany-afd-
| an...
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm still dumbfounded how this era gave rise to the emergence
| of stable long-term bs narratives across all society. Russia
| leverages gullibility a lot but surely there's other factors
| at play.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Simple. If I'm Russia, I would do everything I could to
| directly fund every pacifist academic possible, and
| literally anything that bogs things down, especially if it
| gives moral fuzzies on paper. Nothing is more useful than
| something that wastes time, increases complexity, while
| being tied into morals and worldview, causing it to be
| impossible to question _why_ or _where_ the push is coming
| from.
|
| "Put your guard down, there's no credible threat."
|
| "Gender equality in the military? Expensive, complicated -
| do it!"
|
| "Additional rules for soldiers? Expensive, complicated - do
| it!"
|
| "Do we really need a military this large? Nah, downsize!"
|
| "The US would never not follow their promises, real or
| implied."
|
| "The UN is a powerful and effective safeguarding body;
| trust them."
|
| "International law is a powerful and effective deterrent
| against invasions."
|
| "Maybe the military should be focused on more civilian
| improvement activities."
|
| "Can we start researching whether we could be a post-
| militarized society?"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Simple. If I'm Russia, I would do everything I could to
| directly fund every pacifist academic possible, and
| literally anything that bogs things down, especially if
| it gives moral fuzzies on paper.
|
| And they tried that, and never really gave up on it, but
| the real big returns came when they started funding of
| the international white supremacy and far right
| movements.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Remember Maria Butina, Russian spy in the NRA?
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Remember the 7 compromised GOP senators members visiting
| Moscow on independence day uncomfortably posing for a photo
| op?
| coliveira wrote:
| No one has made more to increase the number of refugees from
| the middle east than the country who has fought endless wars
| in the middle east for the last decades. If you're looking
| for a "culprit" there you have one, but Europe is not ready
| to accept this.
| slt2021 wrote:
| all middle eastern forever wars are part of the Netanyahu's
| Clean Break strategy that US implements
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy
| _...
| simion314 wrote:
| I remember Ruzzia in Syria too not only USA in fact how
| many wars was Ruzzia involved sicne USSR fall? Also count
| special operations as wars?
|
| I blame both USA and Ruzzia for the migrants problem.
| slt2021 wrote:
| most of the European and US refugees are due to American
| forever wars in support for Israeli "clean break" strategy by
| Netanyahu.
|
| Please don't try to put the blame on Russia, where it
| squarely belongs to the USA
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_.
| ..
| dralley wrote:
| Syria is very much Russia's conflict.
| slt2021 wrote:
| go to wikipedia and read the history of Syrian conflict
| and how many years after it started, did Russia intervene
| dralley wrote:
| You're thinking about intervention as if it means direct
| military involvement. They were allied with Assad and
| supplying weapons the entire time.
| slt2021 wrote:
| Supplying weapons to whom? It was bona fide weapons
| purchases program from one state to another, like all
| other states procure their weapons.
|
| Syrian war was civil war financed by the NED, USAID and
| other US entities to topple Assad, like they did in other
| arab spring states.
|
| It took several years of civil war and unsuccessful
| bombing of civilians by Barry Soetoro, unsuccessful
| funding of various jihadi groups by the Pentagon and CIA
| (separately), the same groups that led to the rise of
| ISIS. Only then by the request from then president Assad,
| did Russia help with strikes against ISIS
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Good call!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relati
| ons
|
| > an agreement was signed in February 1946 ensuring
| Soviet support for Syrian independence ahead of the
| evacuation of French troops in April 1946
|
| > In 1971, under an agreement with President Hafez al-
| Assad, the Soviet Union opened its naval military base in
| Tartus
|
| > On 8 October 1980, Syria and the Soviet Union signed a
| Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation
|
| So, "how many years after it started" appears to be a
| negative number.
| slt2021 wrote:
| yes soviet union had diplomatic relations with Syria as
| well as other arab states, but Russia didn't involve in
| Syrian civil war instigated by the CIA (so called Arab
| Spring) and completely fumbled by Barry Soetoro
| ForOldHack wrote:
| "Russia supported the Ba'athist administration of former
| President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from the onset of the
| Syrian conflict in 2011: politically, with military aid,
| and (from September 2015 to December 2024) with direct
| military involvement."
|
| Very much so. Thanks
| Yoric wrote:
| Syria, with its 17+ factions (including ISIS) rebellion
| is definitely... complicated. I wouldn't know where to
| lay blame, personally.
| sReinwald wrote:
| > I also suspect that Russia has been causing the very
| problems that the far right reacts against, most notably
| immigration.
|
| They absolutely are.
|
| A large portion of immigrants into Europe originate from
| countries suffering from conflicts that Russia has a big hand
| in. The big one, of course, being Syria, but also many
| African nations where the Wagner group, now effectively re-
| branded as the Russian Africa Corps are providing military
| support and protection.
|
| Another big aspect of Russia facilitating immigration into
| Europe, is the immigration route through Belarus: https://en.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93European_Union...
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| I sometimes wonder whether the sudden rise of "gender
| politics"... is all part of some sort of conrolled
| oppopsition narrative.
|
| "Gender politics" is used heavily within Russia to provide a
| contrast to "masculine traditional values" which in turn are
| used to convince 100,000s of men to (quite ironically) be
| turned into cannon fodder against Russia's real or perceived
| enemies. And even more ironically is used by security
| services and the military in the form of rape against (male)
| political dissidents and soldiers.
| moritz64 wrote:
| I know about Wirecard and the Marsalek story, but not about
| this:
|
| > Wirecard [...] Funding people smuggling into Europe
|
| Can you elaborate?
| Seanambers wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that the NSA/CIA don't have the
| capability to uncover, insert own players and stop this.
| alephnerd wrote:
| During Cold War 1.0, a lot of analysts and operatives were
| 1st and 2nd gen immigrants from Eastern Europe, and had ties
| and culture experience to help inform policy against the
| Warsaw Pact.
|
| After the 2000s, the US began increasingly limiting those
| with ethnic or potential familial ties from working beats
| related to those countries. A Chinese American wouldn't pass
| the security clearance muster for the China role, nor a
| Jewish American for an Israel role.
|
| There were attempts to potentially remediate this during the
| Biden admin, but it fell to the wayside [0][1]
|
| Some white dude who went to high school in White Plains and
| college at Tufts just isn't going to have the domain or
| cultural experience or knowledge needed to really understand
| China or Iran, and it legitimately has caused a lot of IR
| Policy to become divorced from reality.
|
| [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/16/state-
| department-di...
|
| [1] - https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/18/asian-
| americans-sta...
| neilv wrote:
| Interesting. Do US colleges and US TV/movies provide
| sufficient cultural understanding of US to other countries'
| governments, without them needing US immigrants as
| staffers?
| ianburrell wrote:
| Also, other countries send lots of students to the US.
| Some become immigrants but lots go back home.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Do US colleges and US TV/movies provide sufficient
| cultural understanding of US to other countries'
| governments
|
| Do French/German/Italian/<insert country here>?
|
| They don't, and whatever global media Americans do
| consume tends to be Asian (overwhelmingly Japanese and
| Korean) or Latin American.
|
| This isn't the 20th century anymore when a lot of 1st and
| 2nd gen immigrants had European ties. American in the
| 21st century is now Asia and Latin America facing.
| maxwell wrote:
| This squares with Edward Luttwak's take:
|
| https://unherd.com/2025/02/the-breakdown-of-the-cia
| UltraSane wrote:
| I'm shocked at how impotent they seem against Russian
| cultural warfare.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Because we have the 1st Amendment. It's (correctly) very
| hard to combat people just saying stupid shit in the US.
| titzer wrote:
| It's a cultural problem that we let so much bullshit
| slide. America has come to love the spectacle, and loud
| wrong people can make quite a show.
|
| In a just society, there'd be a price to pay for lying.
| Free speech has consequences. Be loudly and persistently
| wrong (even when corrected by actual experts with real
| facts) and you get penalized with turning down the
| volume. But it's the exact opposite in today's media
| atmosphere.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Totally agreed, just not an easy thing for intelligence
| agencies to fiddle with/defend.
| titzer wrote:
| Sure, that's not their job. It's the cultural shift we've
| allowed in the face of an overwhelming onslaught on our
| attention span.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| U.S intelligence agencies have never been particularly good
| at their job. Complaining about the deep state and such is
| cope from fascist and commies that have continually folded
| under no pressure.
| bg24 wrote:
| The amount of incompetence, incomprehensible ideology and
| red-tape slows everything down. NSA and CIA still look
| powerful because of huge amount of funds that flow in. Other
| countries happily hack into our infrastructure. You hardly
| hear NSA doing such accomplishments anymore (last was the
| Iranian nuclear hack). I doubt if America has any powerful
| spy network in places in Russia or China. But hey, I am just
| a dumb citizen.
| wavemode wrote:
| > You hardly hear NSA doing such accomplishments anymore
|
| To be fair, that could also mean that they've been
| successful at keeping their covert operations... covert.
| bg24 wrote:
| Maybe yes. If so, that is great. But then why do we not
| see any damage to those countries either due to
| misinformation or any other hacks. On a related note,
| Snowden incident shows the depth of our ability.
| rcpt wrote:
| Well when the president hands over all the data they've been
| collecting it makes their job a lot harder
|
| https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/politics/missing-
| rus...
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Which is why they put pro-Putin Gabbard in as DNI. She's been
| purging.
| breadwinner wrote:
| > _It no longer represents American interests, but Russian
| interests_
|
| Disagree. Trump is in this for himself. If he appears to
| represent Russian interests that's likely because he has made
| some kind of deal with Putin that benefits him personally. It
| has been reported that he has been talking to Putin before he
| was elected for the second term [1].
|
| [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-putin-
| ta...
| bloomingkales wrote:
| Everything he does is related to grift. A Ukraine-American
| minerals deal will probably have many layers of agencies and
| private contractors involved. All kinds of side dealings and
| under the table contracts will be exchanged where the Trump
| enterprise can skim off everything, like hedge fund fees.
|
| Such a deal has no place in a peace deal where thousands of
| people have died. Stop the war first.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Donald Trump - whose business "got all the funding we need
| out of Russia"[1] stood up in front of the press and
| requested the Russian government target his opponent's
| email... and the Russian government immediately did so.[2]
| There has been a great deal of circumstantial evidence since,
| with little to anything to rebut it. This may very well be a
| _quid pro quo_ rather than naked pro-Russian partisanship,
| but the practical difference for the United States is
| negligible.
|
| 1. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/332270-eric-trump-
| in-2014-... 2.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-
| hacked-hillar...
| breadwinner wrote:
| If there's any remaining doubt that Trump has an under-the-
| table deal with Putin consider this: Defense Secretary Pete
| Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down
| from all planning against Russia, including offensive
| digital actions [1].
|
| [1] https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-
| stand-d...
| bbarnett wrote:
| There is something going in for sure, but the man knows in
| his heart that he will be dead soon. Surviving his term at
| his great age will be impressive.
|
| Old men often don't care about personal help, so look to his
| kin/family for benefits.
| breadwinner wrote:
| > _Old men often don 't care about personal help_
|
| This is no ordinary old man though. Look at how many times
| he has mentioned third term as President.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| Many old men are delusional.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| He's trolling dude, just like he said he was better than
| George Washington. There's some kind of duality in US
| politics where people either take Trump seriously but not
| literally, or they take him literally and not seriously
| (the latter leading to all sorts of confusion, though
| often it's intentional confusion).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Trump is in this for himself. If he appears to represent
| Russian interests that's likely because he has made some kind
| of deal with Putin that benefits him personally.
|
| That's usually how one state usually acheives a compromise of
| another state's government, by finding the right weak links
| and making deals with them (the chief of state and/or head of
| government, and especially the person holding an office which
| serves simultaneously as both, is pretty much the ideal case
| for this, though in practice it is often only people a few
| steps down.)
|
| So, while that description is true, it supports _and
| explains_ rather than contradicts the claim that Russia has
| compromised the US government.
| tim333 wrote:
| Trump is probably in it for himself and also helping himself
| by representing Russian interests. He's no doubt had a lot of
| money and support from Russia and probably wouldn't even have
| become president without them.
|
| I think he's hoping for some deal where he / the US / the
| minerals corporation control half of Ukraine and Putin
| controls the other half and Zelensky and Ukrainian democracy
| just get in the way of that.
| jmyeet wrote:
| "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's
| friend is fatal." -- Henry Kissinger
|
| It's too simplistic (and IMHO not accurate) to say the American
| government has been commpromised by Russia. Go back a few years
| and you'll see American politicians from all parties saying how
| great it was that they've crippled the Russian military without
| a single American soldier being deployed and killed.
|
| It's more accurate to say that foreign policy, which is
| bipartisan, is to loot the world. Domestic poicy is to divide
| up the spoils.
|
| The US never took a moral stand for Ukraine. It was always
| through the lens of American imperial interests. This is no
| different.
| fallinditch wrote:
| As I understand it, the evidence that the US government has
| been compromised by Russia comes from documented instances of
| Russian interference and influence attempts, including
| election meddling and disinformation campaigns.
| rafram wrote:
| https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56470/did-
| henry...
| Dig1t wrote:
| So I know this is not a popular opinion on this site but the
| only solution being offered by the other side seems to be the
| meat grinder approach. Basically continue letting both sides
| throw their men and (and also US taxpayer) money into the
| conflict until one side gives up or runs out of men.
|
| I am fundamentally anti-war. We can and should compromise on
| this. There's a reason the neocons are aligned with the left on
| it. The military industrial complex is profiting massively, big
| banks are securing massive land grants to help "rebuild", and
| meanwhile both countries are depopulating themselves.
|
| What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| You mean like the International Brigades? They are defending
| their country from an aggressor - they're supposed to roll
| over?
| theGnuMe wrote:
| There's a third solution: Russia could just stop its
| aggression and leave.
| pizlonator wrote:
| I think you're saying that not because you're anti-war, but
| because you're OK with Ukraine losing.
| tesrx wrote:
| Trump is calling for peace and a ceasefire agreement.
|
| Zelensky won't agree?
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Trump offered a mineral deal that secure Ukrainian
| minerals for the US while offering absolutely nothing in
| return. He did so from a position of power since
| Ukrainian lives depend on continuing military aid to
| defend against an illegal war of aggression with the goal
| of exterminating his country. Unless he's identical to
| Putin Trump isn't even in a position to offer peace.
|
| You cannot possibly imagine how disgusted people are by
| Trump and by statements like yours. It's just disgusting.
| tesrx wrote:
| How is my statement "disgusting"?
|
| I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| You want a peace by Ukraine's capitulation, which would
| involve Ukraine handing over millions of Ukrainian
| citizens to Russia. I'll give you the benefit of the
| doubt that haven't really thought this through but it's
| nevertheless disgusting, particularly the bullying of a
| foreign dignitary in the White House was disgusting and
| unprecedented in diplomacy.
|
| Sorry I don't have any other word for it. It's disgusting
| behavior.
| tesrx wrote:
| Genuine question: what is the solution?
|
| The United States has given Ukraine billions. That hasn't
| seemed to resolved the issue?
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| The only people who should be in charge of deciding when
| it's time to stop fighting are the Ukrainian people and
| their elected leaders. That's how democracy works. You
| should continue to support Ukraine with weapons together
| with the numerous allies you have, seek further alliance
| continue to pressure Russia with sanctions and isolation.
| Russian embassies should be closed, by the way.
|
| Why? Because it's the morally right thing to do. It's as
| simple as that.
| dralley wrote:
| The primary thing which the US has given Ukraine is
| weapons designed and built during the Cold War for the
| explicit purpose of defending Europe against a Russian
| invasion.
| ioblomov wrote:
| I'm with you. And we seem to be in the minority here.
| Setting Ukraine aside for the moment, what have the many
| US military conflicts--they were not "wars" because the
| last one Congress declared was during WW2--since WW2
| achieved?
|
| Excluding proxy wars for simplicity's sake and only
| counting those where we had boots on the ground, from our
| engagements in Korea to Afghanistan, how has the world
| become a better place?
|
| Besides (arguably) Korea, it seems our blood and treasure
| could've been better spent.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| The ones wishing for peace most are the Ukrainians.
|
| However the Ukrainians also want a country where they can
| live in peace. Not under Russian occupation, not in fear
| of Russia breaking the agreement, again. (After agreeing
| to Ukrainian souveranity while Ukraine gave up their
| Nukes, after agreeing to the Minsk Memorandum after
| occupying Crimea)
| macinjosh wrote:
| It absolutely offers something in return. It gives the US
| interests in Ukraine and in maintaining the status quo so
| we can access those minerals. Putin wants them for
| himself. This is a clever way to push back at Putin while
| also compromising on having NATO at Russia's doorstep. It
| also compensates the US for its generous spending on
| Ukraine's plight. NATO is over anyway because European
| countries cannot or will not contribute their share and
| frankly the US isn't threatened by Russia in the same way
| it was during the Cold War. I much prefer a bi or tri
| polar world to the Cold War.
| tesrx wrote:
| Well said. I completely agree.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| You've just confirmed with a meandering, misleading
| paraphrase the same as what I've stated in the first
| place, that the US has offered nothing in return.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| >We can and should compromise on this.
|
| With an insane 50% mineral rights demand by the USA in
| particular which should not be on the table in a deal between
| Ukraine and Russia?
|
| I'm not sure how you can post what you've posted with a
| straight face.
| UltraSane wrote:
| If your country was invaded by your neighbor would you want
| to fight them or just capitulate?
| vultour wrote:
| Except there is no reason for a compromise. Russia invaded
| Ukraine, they're free to withdraw any time they like. I
| wonder how anti-war you'd be if another country decided half
| of yours suddenly belonged to them.
| Dig1t wrote:
| There is absolutely a reason for compromise. Ukraine should
| be opposed to depopulating itself.
|
| The current situation is very similar to the trench warfare
| of WW1. Despite there being a clear initiator of WW1, BOTH
| sides absolutely had a huge reason to compromise. Over 8
| million lives were lost, the reason to compromise was
| saving those 8 million lives.
| mcv wrote:
| > Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
|
| And they are. They want the people back that Russia
| abducted, and the people who still live in the occupied
| territories. They can't bring back the dead obviously,
| but they can fight for the living. And for the future.
|
| To understand Ukraine's will to fight, you need to
| understand that they have lived under Moscow's yoke for
| generations. Their grandparents lived through the
| Holodomor, their parents lived under Soviet oppression.
| The current generation has known 30 years of freedom. And
| now they're faced with the possibility of their children
| living under Moscow rule again.
|
| This is why they fight so hard.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There was never a compromise in WW1, Germany collapsed.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I empathize with your opinion Dig1t. War is horrible and
| meat grinders are especially so.
|
| But when a victimized population like Ukraine decides it
| wants to keep fighting. Especially given:
|
| > Ukraine should be opposed to depopulating itself.
|
| Then you gotta ask yourself:
|
| Given they would rather die than suffer the consequences
| of a compromise.
|
| Then maybe they know something about the consequences of
| that compromise that you and I can't? and if so, maybe we
| should continue trusting the victims to not compromise ?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is just an argument for letting powerful countries
| take over weaker ones, because resistance would result in
| suffering.
| macinjosh wrote:
| I certainly wouldn't expect another random country halfway
| around the world to foot the bill for my country.
| collinmcnulty wrote:
| You cannot compromise with an aggressor, it encourages them
| to be more aggressive. Being anti-war to the point of
| allowing allies to be overrun by totalitarians is just
| foolishness, and a great way to create more war.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Left - at least the moderate left in italy, I don't know what
| kind of American left you're talking about - is anti war in
| an anti _offensive_ war sense, not against a defensive war or
| against defending another more or less allied country from
| being invaded by another country
|
| I am not sure of course, but I guess the same would be true
| of other similar center left parties in europe
| terribleperson wrote:
| What compromise do you suggest? So far what trump has been
| offering is "give us a bunch of stuff and get nothing in
| return".
|
| Compromise would be a peace deal that actually guarantees
| Ukraine's future safety (e.g. NATO membership or nuclear
| weapons) without further compromising their sovereignty
| (forcing them to give up more territory or recognize Russian
| territorial claims).
|
| We don't have the ability to compel Ukraine to take a bad
| deal, and if we did it would be wrong to.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an
| end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are
| grinding themselves down and the only thing the left can
| bring themselves to support is continuing the conflict.
|
| Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick
| Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the
| good guys team as much as you think you are.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| This also puts _you_ on the same side as Neville
| Chamberlain, so.
|
| There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the
| past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war
| and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of
| their names did not survive because they weren't around
| afterward to write the histories.
|
| We tried doing literally nothing when Russia invaded
| Georgia, and we tried doing basically nothing when Russia
| invaded Crimea in 2014. How did that work out? He invaded
| another god damned country. He really thought it was
| going to be a three-day operation; he thought he was
| going to be welcomed in Kiev. Should we have done
| nothing, forever?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick
| Cheney.
|
| Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree
| "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person
| is horrible.
| terribleperson wrote:
| The position "any compromise that ends the war is
| acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors
| the ability to take any territory they want from weaker
| nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force
| them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where
| this absolutist idea leads?
|
| If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can
| have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is
| that people who are willing to kill for profit win.
|
| If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing
| to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that
| behavior unprofitable.
| vel0city wrote:
| My good friends, for the second time in our history, a
| British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing
| peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We
| thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get
| a nice quiet sleep.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
|
| We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea.
| Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like
| Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to
| an end._
|
| Which would entail trusting the US and Russia.
|
| Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and
| is now going after them. So why trust Trump?
|
| And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe
| UA from the map?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Star Trek DS9 episode 6x05
|
| "What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling
| him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to
| agree!"
|
| If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against
| someone, they're probably bad news.
|
| I appreciate I'm oversimplifying and ignoring the
| realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to
| _mercilessly crush_ the aggressor state that invaded and
| annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the
| US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their
| responses to an obvious existential threat.
| mcv wrote:
| > Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick
| Cheney.
|
| That's a fallacy.
|
| It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something
| controversial that everybody disagrees with, like
| initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in
| this case, everybody across the political spectrum who
| understands the situation and its context, agrees that it
| is vital to defend Ukraine.
|
| Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody
| should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in
| order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have
| been better than 5 years of destruction?
| Dig1t wrote:
| I don't think it's a fallacy at all. Being on the same
| team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing
| whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a
| decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and
| really examine all the evidence about whether you're
| actually on the right side of history (you're probably
| not).
|
| This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of
| WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to
| standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on
| lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders
| of the countries involved had been able to recognize that
| years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate
| a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been
| saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from
| even happening.
|
| This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia,
| Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia
| without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and
| we should be trying to do so not only because we're
| spending a lot of money on it but because we are
| perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.
| mcv wrote:
| No, it's still a fallacy.
|
| Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is
| always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear
| here.
|
| > This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of
| WW2.
|
| Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by
| a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1
| by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a
| fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the
| initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not
| logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But
| in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to
| keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Russia broke the last ceasefire. Another ceasefire
| without _material_ guarantees of security for Ukraine is
| pointless for Ukraine to sign, as there 's no reason to
| believe it'll "bring the meat grinder to an end".
|
| Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when
| they kept shouting over him. And what at least one
| reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.
| pjc50 wrote:
| How do you stop the Russians continuing a one sided
| murder campaign after the surrender?
| collingreen wrote:
| Give them whatever they want, again, I suppose! That's
| the only conclusion possible from a policy of "any
| compromise to end the killing".
| collingreen wrote:
| I'm not sure ad hominem is as convincing as you think it
| is. "Any compromise at all" is a very easy thing to say
| when it isn't your blood in the streets.
| ioblomov wrote:
| Although I agree that Trump's desire to end the war without
| any Russian concessions is foolhardy, Russia will not
| tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons on its borders.
| Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on
| our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after
| the Soviet Union's collapse. None other than George Kennan,
| the Russian-speaking architect of Cold War containment,
| wrote an op-ed about it then...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-
| error.h... https://archive.ph/7qYtE
| dralley wrote:
| >Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear
| weapons for Ukraine.
|
| Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded
| Ukraine.
|
| >Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged
| on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s
| after the Soviet Union's collapse.
|
| There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a
| meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in
| that same meeting, not turned into any official
| agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had
| collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to
| an entity which also no longer existed.
|
| Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened
| to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were
| not in NATO.
| ioblomov wrote:
| Fair enough: promise is too strong a word. But hints to
| that effect were given during diplomacy to ensure German
| reunification...
|
| https://archive.ph/hyDhA
|
| My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading
| Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion _to Russia 's
| borders_. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while
| Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in
| 2002 and 2004...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspir
| ing...
|
| And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the
| pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was
| ousted...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
|
| To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked
| represents an ignorance of recent history.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| You make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was
| deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's
| actions are at least partly in response to that.
|
| However, there's a big difference between expanding your
| sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those
| countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through
| military invasion, as Russia is doing.
|
| The two are not at all comparable.
| wavemode wrote:
| What relevance does Ukraine joining NATO, a defensive
| alliance, have to Russia? (Unless they are planning to
| attack again, which would mean the "peace deal" isn't
| actually worth the paper it's signed on, and is just a
| way for Russia to regroup for their next invasion.)
| ioblomov wrote:
| Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO--and the
| arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered--directly led
| to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost
| started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on
| Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.
| TinkersW wrote:
| Russia already had, and even created more NATO membership
| on its borders(Finland just recently). That excuse is
| clearly false.
| terribleperson wrote:
| The only reason for them to not accept NATO membership of
| a neighbor is if they're planning to invade that
| neighbor.
|
| Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes
| the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine
| and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real
| guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a
| farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion,
| except this one will start closer to home and be better
| planned.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
|
| I am extremely anti-war, but capitulating to Russia and
| rewarding them for invading a neighbor would guarantee more
| war and killing, not less.
| brookst wrote:
| It's bizarre that anyone would try to spin opposition to
| war for war's sake as some kind of obligation to never
| fight regardless of the provocation or context.
|
| Yes, yes, I am opposed to punching random people on the
| street. It is bad manners. That does not mean I have to
| stand by and watch someone else get attacked for no reason.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| For fucking real, I was against invading Iraq (again...)
| for reasons _pretty similar_ to why I 'm against letting
| Russia take Ukraine.
| WD-42 wrote:
| I think traditionally anti war meant being opposed to
| aggression, for example the United States invasion of Iraq to
| maintain oil interests.
|
| Ukraine is a western country invaded by an enemy of the west.
| You can still be anti violence but it's a different
| situation.
| Dig1t wrote:
| Einstein was famously a pacifist, opposed to the concept of
| war. Many leftists used to be aligned with this as well.
|
| We are funding a meat grinder that has no sign of victory
| for either side anywhere in sight. This has been going on
| for years now. Long enough where we need to consider a
| diplomatic compromise, we can't just keep pumping money
| into another country waiting for enough men to die, it is
| fundamentally evil.
|
| I know people feel that they are morally justified in
| funding the conflict forever because Russia is the
| aggressor. But at a certain point it becomes evil not to
| seek an end to the killing. Have you watched videos of the
| horrific things that are happening over there with drone
| warfare? How can you watch that and say "it's okay to let
| this go on forever because technically Russia is the
| invader"?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Einstein was pro-nuke!
|
| Certainly applying the Einstein solution of a spread of
| nukes would end the war, very quickly.
| ioblomov wrote:
| He was only pro-nuke through fear that Hitler would get
| them first. After the war, he was as anti-nuke as
| Oppenheimer and the rest.
| justatdotin wrote:
| he called his initial support 'the one great mistake of
| my life' - and spent the rest of it campaigning for
| disarmament
| dralley wrote:
| > Einstein was famously a pacifist, opposed to the
| concept of war.
|
| And then his mind changed when confronted with WWII. "I
| am a pacifist in principle, but I am not an absolute
| pacifist."
|
| >"it's okay to let this go on forever because technically
| Russia is the invader"?
|
| There is no "technically". Russia is the invader. Russia
| can leave at any time and there will be peace very
| quickly.
| y0ssar1an wrote:
| Victory for Ukraine is surviving to the next day. Do you
| really think funding them is "fundamentally evil"? They
| don't have a choice about fighting. If they lose, Ukraine
| will be brutally "Russified". Their language and culture
| will be banned. Their poets and patriots killed. Their
| children will be brainwashed and turned into loyal
| soldiers for Putin's next war of conquest.
|
| Nobody likes war, but letting your country be subjugated
| by an evil dictator is worse.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Pacifism is good insofar as one should avoid starting
| wars. What you are arguing for is prostration, reflexive
| submission to any non-pacifist actor. All your posts in
| this thread are bemoaning the horrors of war and
| comparing it to a meatgrinder, but all saying that the
| solution is for Ukraine to capitulate. What consequences
| should befall Russia?
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| How can you compromise with an invader looking to occupy your
| country?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Canada wonders this too.
|
| Perhaps the playbook is:
|
| * Russia takes part of Northern Canada (oil and lots of it,
| Northern passage aka the new Panama Canal)
|
| * Canada fights, but Russia remains
|
| * US says "If you were the 51st state, we could protect
| you"
|
| US gets Canada, Russia the Ukraine, neither side objects.
| tbatchelli wrote:
| My understanding is that Ukraine gave up their nuclear
| arsenal in exchange for an agreement Wirth Russia to not be
| invaded? If that is the case and Russia invaded anyway, then
| what kind of compromise can you have with a country that
| breaks any agreement they sign?
|
| I doubt many people want war, I know I don't. But once you
| have a warring nation going rouge, there aren't many options
| left on the table.
| dralley wrote:
| Which is just one of many, many broken agreements.
| hnuser9125 wrote:
| Why is compromising the anti war stance? Ukraine is not
| Putin's end goal, it's his first step
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Ukraine is not Putin's end goal, it's his first step
|
| Technically his second given the invasion of Crimea.
| BigParm wrote:
| If Russian soldiers leave then the war ends immediately.
| sfifs wrote:
| I don't think you should be down voted for opinions.
|
| The question is how to organize incentives to make anti-war
| ideal a reality.
|
| As the last 70 odd years have demonstrated, Economic
| development as a carrot alone seems to have not worked. The
| stick of MAD unfortunately seems to required.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| If Russia was allowed to annex Ukraine with no military
| resistance... would this not certainly encourage more
| invasions/annexations in the future between various
| countries? Would this not result in more violence in the long
| run?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| In fact, Russia's successful invasion of Georgia in 2008 -
| during which the West basically just said "omg plz don't" -
| did exactly that.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Excellent point.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| No one wants peace, they want justice. But putting aside all
| that nonsense, this is a relatively cheap way to fuck with
| Russia, one of our main geopolitical adversaries. If Ukraine
| is willing to jump into the meat grinder, let's give Russia
| the push it needs to join them. Don't give up a winning
| position for no reason.
| justatdotin wrote:
| I agree that this accurately illustrates usa strategy on
| ukraine.
|
| of course the reason to stop killing people is to stop
| killing people.
| david422 wrote:
| Russia is not acting in good faith, so a compromise doesn't
| help. If both parties had legitimate grievances and acted in
| good faith, they could come to a peaceful lasting compromise.
| But instead, one nation aggressively invaded another with
| constantly shifting narratives for the reason why.
| mcv wrote:
| > What happened to the left that used to be anti-war?
|
| The left is still anti-war. But most people on the left have
| paid enough attention to Putin to know that surrendering to
| him is not going to bring peace.
|
| This war didn't just start in 2022; Putin invaded Ukraine
| twice in 2014. He invaded Georgia in 2008. And very early on
| in his career, he completely demolished Chechnya. He's not a
| peace guy. And all those wars by Putin were rewarded, and so
| he continues. Now finally, people understand that giving
| Putin everything he wants is just going to make him want more
| and attack more.
|
| In Russia, they're already talking about Moldova, Estonia,
| Lithuania and even Poland. The only way this will end is by
| stopping Putin.
|
| The left didn't compromise with Hitler either. Surrendering
| to Hitler didn't bring anyone peace. Peace came only after
| defeating Hitler. And unfortunately, it's exactly the same
| with Putin. Except nobody is going to march on Moscow,
| because Putin has nukes. So the only way to stop him becomes
| letting him exhaust his country until it collapses. That
| sounds terrible, but Ukraine is actually willing and eager to
| be the anvil on which Russia destroys itself. All we need to
| do is continue to support Ukraine with everything they need
| and more.
|
| I know it's terrible. You can blame Putin for that. But this
| may be the only way to put an end to Putin's bottomless
| aggression.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Those of us truly anti-war realize that allowing Ukraine to
| be punished/Ukrainians to be kidnapped for giving up their
| nuclear weapons will only lead to future wars and future
| nuclear proliferation, not less war..
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Unfortunately, if we do not want to have a direct conflict
| with Russia, the next best thing is giving Ukraine massive
| amounts of weapons, arms, etc., and enabling them to retake
| their country.
|
| Any alternative that allows Russian gains will only further
| cement the idea that wars of aggression can be worthwhile in
| the modern world, and this is the most horrendous conclusion
| possible for anyone actually anti-war.
| marcusverus wrote:
| > and enabling them to retake their country.
|
| The West has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in
| weapons and money, yet the Ukranians have made near-zero
| progress. They are incapable of retaking their country
| without direct intervention from NATO, which is not an
| option.
| y0ssar1an wrote:
| As if the Ukrainians had a choice about fighting. If Russia
| gives up, the war ends. If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ends.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| It's nice to see a speck of sanity in this thread.
|
| Oh but didn't you know that all that aid money is actually
| going to America(n weapons manufacturers, who will then lobby
| us into the next forever war after this one).
|
| If you were wondering how american politicians managed to
| piss away trillions of dollars in the middle east instead of
| fixing healthcare or education, building trains, doing
| anything the least bit useful, this is how. You gin the
| people up into believing that there's a bad guy somewhere and
| its our job to make things right, and you're off to the
| races.
|
| Works every time.
| danny_taco wrote:
| Ok. Let's pretend this is what is done. Russia gets to keep
| all the land it took from Ukraine, at the cost of hundreds of
| thousands of lives on both sides.
|
| Who's going to stop Russia from re-arming and building up its
| army only to launch another attack in 2-3 years? Who's going
| to prevent them from destabilizing Ukraine until it falls?
|
| Russia won't stop until it has destroyed Ukraine, that much
| is certain. Russia only understands strength, and they won't
| stop until stopped by force.
|
| But hey, peace is more important right? Maybe they should
| just take Ukraine, capture, torture, rape and murder all the
| people they deem as undesirables and convert it to another
| Russian oblast as it was once before. Then there will be
| peace.
|
| I would imagine you would also lay down at your own home if
| someone breaks in and tries to rape and murder your family
| just for the sake of peace?
| jemmyw wrote:
| Ukraine offered an alternative approach. They are willing to
| compromise on territory - i.e. stop fighting over it, not
| give up the claim to it. What they want, and they've said it
| again and again, is a security guarantee for the future to
| prevent Russia invading again. Either membership of NATO or a
| specific treaty. This is their one goal beyond coming under
| the control of Russia during this specific war, not having to
| worry about being invaded again. If they don't get it then
| they're likely to start developing a nuclear deterrent
| (they've already indicated this and they probably have the
| capability).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I mean Russia could leave, pull their troops back in Russia.
| It's not like the Ukrainians invaded Russia, or have annexed
| any Russian territory that they want to keep. The Russians
| were not in fact forced to invade.
| adhamsalama wrote:
| I think you mean by Israel.
| neoromantique wrote:
| Russia is Israels adversary, despite the appearances.
| xg15 wrote:
| Israel's maybe, but not of Netanyahu and his government. He
| was cozying up to Putin already during the first Trump term
| [1] and is currently right at work doing the same again [2]
| to the point where they push the US to keep Russia in Syria
| rather than Turkey. [3] This despite Russia being closely
| allied with Iran.
|
| An Israel-Russia alliance makes even less sense than an US-
| Russia one, yet both are currently happening.
|
| [1] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-
| news/elections/2022-07-26/ty-...
|
| [2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-02-25/ty-
| article/.p...
|
| [3] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2025-02-28/ty-
| artic...
| danans wrote:
| Seems like they were banking on the Ukrainian president bending
| the knee, and that didn't happen. The greatest damage done to
| the US by that meeting might be the public display of POTUS's
| histrionic decompensation, requiring the VP to jump to his
| defense. It's a bad look overall, regardless of the eventual
| outcome for Ukraine or the US.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The US wouldn't have put Trump back in power if it cared
| about "overall looks".
| codr7 wrote:
| Perhaps they figured there are more important priorities
| for a US President than looking good?
| codr7 wrote:
| I'm truly surprised anyone decides to disagree with that
| statement.
|
| It frightens me a bit that people think looks are more
| important than results.
|
| But I guess it's the world we live in.
| exe34 wrote:
| exactly, giving Putin what he wants is more important
| than "looking good", whatever that means.
|
| Ukraine's only hope is that the US stays out of it now,
| rather than joins Russia. Europe has a losing battle on
| our hands now.
| modriano wrote:
| In addition to looking like a terrible President, Trump
| is also very bad at governing, especially in a crisis.
| Last time he was President, he inherited a great economy
| that he was focused on looting (giving himself and other
| billionaires a massive tax cut and trying to kill the
| Affordable Care Act to steal even more). He left office
| with unemployment at 15%, the country $8T further in
| debt, crime skyrocketing to 30 year highs, cities were
| literally on fire, and everyone's quality of life was
| horribly harmed by his terrible management of pandemic.
|
| What was Trump good at?
| danans wrote:
| Trump cares a lot about overall looks. He didn't look like
| he was in control - that's what matters.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Not sure he noticed? I think in his mind he came off
| strong.
| danans wrote:
| Watch the spin afterwards. The more he tries to spin it
| to look better, the less he feels like he came off
| strong.
| dboreham wrote:
| "It was a perfect melt down"
| robofanatic wrote:
| he even took credit by saying I kept this going so long
| because its important for American people to see whats
| going on.
| ecocentrik wrote:
| Trump looked like a fool that let his target bait him
| repeatedly on national television, outing him as an
| extortionist.
|
| Unfortunately, it will now be used as an excuse for the
| US to alley with Russia to receive compensation for it's
| prior defense investment.
| deanCommie wrote:
| To MAGA, he spoke louder, and with more confidence,
| therefore he won.
|
| Unfortunately this will not shake support of him in his
| base.
| danans wrote:
| > Unfortunately this will not shake support of him in his
| base.
|
| That will probably come when they lose Medicaid and food
| stamp benefits.
| Muromec wrote:
| They wanted an excuse to drop support and they got it. They
| don't drop support because they are playing for team russia,
| they are peaceniks and it's Zelenskyy who rejected the shit
| deal. If they wanted to have those rare metals or whatever
| they would have just bought it and made a good faith effort
| to negotiate something instead of this.
| danans wrote:
| > They wanted an excuse to drop support and they got it.
|
| If they message that they are dropping support based on
| that _personal insult_ , they will lose respect and
| credibility, and will get manipulated.
| Yoric wrote:
| Not sure that's terribly different from any other message
| they've sent so far.
| modriano wrote:
| Nah, Trump was never going to offer Ukraine the security
| guarantee needed to end this conflict. Trump is just
| extending this "give us $500B in mineral rights in exchange
| for nothing" deal to manufacture an excuse to cease all aid
| to Ukraine and exonerate his administration from the
| holocaust that Putin will execute against Ukrainians after
| Trump gives Putin all of the intel the US military has
| accumulated aiding Ukraine to this point.
| alkyon wrote:
| Paid traitors are repaying their debts, hopefully they'll get
| what they deserve.
| boudin wrote:
| Destroying USAid weakend US' soft power abroad. NATO's members
| turning against each others in a non-sense economic war.
|
| Weakening all federal agencies meant to bring stability in
| society. Trump spreading bluntly the propaganda from the
| Kremlin.
|
| Putin couldn't have written a better scenario to get rid of his
| main opposition.
|
| It's quite clear that Trump is just a puppet, but there's
| nothing new here.
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers...
| rayiner wrote:
| Another weasel word "soft power." Is interfering in
| bangladeshi elections "soft power?"
|
| When did neocons take over silicon valley?
| dashundchen wrote:
| [flagged]
| rayiner wrote:
| You didn't "debunk" anything. You have no understanding
| of the history of State Department involvement in that
| region over decades, and are just reflexively assuming
| Elon is lying.
| dashundchen wrote:
| Trump and Musk are lying about that grant.
|
| Show me proof of their claims that entire $29 million
| grant went to to that agency was spent on work in
| Bangledashi elections as Musk/DOGE claimed, despite no
| federal contract indicating that.
|
| Show me the proof that DOGE "saved" that money after the
| contract was almost done and money was almost entirely
| granted.
|
| Show me the proof that it went to an agency of two people
| as Trump claimed.
|
| You can't show me proof of any of those things because
| they are lying.
|
| You either ignorantly or willfully continue to repeat
| that lie, likely for partisan reasons.
| rayiner wrote:
| The grant is documented here:
| https://www.highergov.com/grant/AID388A1700003/
|
| Bangladeshi officials confirmed, moreover, that USAID
| bypassed official government channels in providing that
| money: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-
| asia/usaid-b...
|
| There is no legitimate reason for the U.S. to be
| supporting political organizations of any sort in another
| country, bypassing official government channels.
|
| It's not a partisan point at all. My family came to
| America from Bangladesh because of USAID. I have every
| reason to hope the money was really going for childhood
| nutrition or vaccines or a legitimate expenditure like
| that.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| If Trump was taking direct orders from Putin, what would he
| be doing differently?
| Animats wrote:
| That seemed plausible at one time. But what could Russia have
| on Trump at this point that would be more than mildly
| embarrassing? Certainly nothing sexual. Trump had an affair
| with a stripper while his wife was pregnant, and that didn't
| bother his base. It now comes out that Trump flew on Epstein's
| "Lollypop Express", and nobody cares. No leverage there.
|
| On the financial conflict of interest side, Trump and his base
| treat that as a non-problem.
|
| Somebody shot at Trump and hit his ear, and that didn't change
| Trump's behavior.
|
| What could Putin do to apply pressure to Trump personally?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > But what could Russia have on Trump at this point that
| would be more than mildly embarrassing?
|
| Perhaps it's more a case of "what did Russia offer Trump?"
| and the answer probably starts at "work to get you into power
| to let you loot the coffers".
| rcpt wrote:
| Maybe it has something to do with those mishandled classified
| documents about Russian interference in US elections that
| turned up at Mar a Lago in 2021.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| If I wanted to control Trump I'd silence key members of his
| domestic opposition, let him get drunk on power, and then
| threaten to stop doing so. His ego, now inflated, probably
| can't handle a return trip to the real world.
| exceptione wrote:
| Trump is a distraction.
|
| If all people here would study Trump, then nobody would have
| hired him for any job. He fails, and he does that
| spectacularly. His businesses have floundered time after
| time, and his ass has been saved many a times (with Russian
| money too, yeah, years back). Trump's image is completely
| fake, he is not a great deal maker. He is born rich, at best
| a con man. But he is valuable.
|
| That begs the question: *a) what powers do
| select the likes of Trump, Greene, Kennedy?* *b) For
| what?*
|
| I have no horse in this race, but anybody with a clear mind
| can see those people are mentally impaired.
|
| Re a. There is a small but powerful contingent in the USA
| elites that do NOT believe in democracy. The movements behind
| MAGA are part driven by extreme white-nationalist christians,
| notable Dominions, part driven by old-Nazi elites from the
| Interbellum and part driven by extreme crypto-/tech-dystopia
| crazies, that have access to enormous amounts of wealth,
| intelligence about people (Big tech) and "social" media.
| America falling into the hands of radical but powerful elites
| with extreme beliefs and tools was just a matter of time.
| Articles shared here on Hacker News have been flagged over
| the years.
|
| Re b. Trump, Kennedy, Greene etc are able to suck up tons of
| media attention. They will generate a crisis every hour
| without needing instructions. They are not too smart and
| powerful, so they will have a room in which they can operate,
| but they will not be able to control the tools like media
| themselves. But what they will do is making sure the people
| will get distracted by the drama of these people, whereas
| people should be concerned with what is happening with the
| democratic state. Te state is being replaced according to
| Plan 2025, from which you have not seen everything.
|
| Do not focus too much on Trump and Elon. They are there
| pursuing their own interests, they are tolerated for now, but
| they will be pushed from the board once their work is
| finished.
|
| America siding with Putin is just a tip of the ice berg of
| what is to come for America and the world.
| Animats wrote:
| > He fails, and he does that spectacularly.
|
| And yet he comes back. The head of intelligence for the
| Ukrainian military, Kyrylo Budanov, was asked about Trump
| last year. He commented that Trump has failed and come back
| nine times. That was a good insight.
|
| Budanov's comment about the current situation is here.[1]
| He says a cease-fire is possible in the near term, but not
| peace. That's realistic.
|
| > anybody with a clear mind can see those people are
| mentally impaired.
|
| One tiny newspaper, the Durango Herald, just came out and
| said that Trump should be removed via the 25th amendment
| procedure for a sick president. Bing/MSN captured the
| beginning of the story, but if you try to follow the link
| [2], the message is "There has been a critical error on
| this website." The story is not visible on their site,
| which is up. I sent them a note asking if they were
| pressured to pull the story.
|
| [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraines-defence-
| intell...
|
| [2] https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/its-time-for-
| the-25th...
| imgabe wrote:
| No, it is for once representing American interests. Not
| Ukrainian interests. Not Lockheed Martin's interest.
|
| Americans don't want to be embroiled in endless wars.
|
| What is your alternative? Keep sending billions to Ukraine?
| Send American soldiers to die? What is it you would like to
| happen? Are you going to die for Ukraine? Are you going to send
| your kids to die there?
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Keep sending billions to Ukraine?_
|
| Yes, absolutely. Ukraine falling to Russia represents a huge
| threat to the security of Europe. After Ukraine, Putin would
| likely take Belarus, possibly invade Poland or Finland. A
| weak Europe, one that is dominated by Russia, would be
| disastrous to the US, both abroad and at home. It is sad to
| me that so many Trump supporters are too short-sighted to see
| this.
|
| What we've spent (and could spend going forward) in Ukraine
| is a teeny tiny price to pay to help ensure this doesn't come
| to pass.
|
| America isn't about freedom anymore, it seems. It's about
| cozying up to dictators and appeasing them. I was
| disappointed in my fellow citizens after the 2016 election,
| but I could kinda understand what was going on. Now I'm just
| disgusted.
|
| > _Send American soldiers to die?_
|
| No, of course not, and this is such a bad-faith argument, as
| no one is seriously suggesting that.
| imgabe wrote:
| We are $36 trillion in debt and it is growing by a trillion
| dollars every 100 days. Continuing to send hundreds of
| billions to a losing war is a bigger threat to the US.
|
| The war will end. Russia will offer concessions that
| benefit the US. They are not going to steamroll Europe.
| Europe can step up and contribute to Europe's defense.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Russia will offer concessions that benefit the president
| and his friends, you mean.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| People like you in 2014:
|
| "We should not push back against Russia's annexation of
| Crimea. It will allow the war to end. They are not going
| to invade Ukraine to take other territory."
| dpc050505 wrote:
| American debt is lucrative as long as you don't alienate
| the whole world by behaving completely irrationally. The
| USD being the world's transfer currency means that you
| can finance debt at the lowest interest rate on the
| planet and use that debt on more productive investments,
| which is what the USA's government is doing. There's a
| reason why the US still has a stellar credit rating.
|
| American debt is lucrative and you morons are fucking up
| your cash cow because you don't understand banking and
| are willing to let a handful of crypto bros try to
| accelerate the international monetary system's downfall
| so that they can try to replace it by some bullshit rug
| pull coin that doesn't even have the technology to
| function as global currency.
| dashundchen wrote:
| The Republicans in charge now are responsible for a good
| chunk of that debt. $8 trillion in PPP helicopter money +
| tax cuts for the wealthy during Trump's term, plus
| trillions more for Bush's tax cuts and Afghanistan/Iraq
| warcrimes.
|
| And they're looking to double down by giving billionaries
| trillions more in tax cut while driving up the debt.
| Trump/Musk/GOP do not actually care about debt or
| spending, it's a distraction.
| duxup wrote:
| >Americans don't want to be embroiled in endless wars.
|
| We don't want our troops / people embroiled in them, so
| fighting for freedom by funding others is a good way to do
| that.
|
| Waiting until it comes to your doorstep by nations who have
| made no qualms that they aren't friendly is a bad choice.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| You're being downvoted, but sadly your opinion is
| representative of a huge percentage of the population. The
| part that has a... simple, transactional view of each and
| every international incident.
|
| That's the most polite way I could express that.
|
| The more nuanced view is this:
|
| America made a deal with Ukraine: Give up your nuclear
| weapons in exchange for our protection.
|
| They made similar deals with Taiwan, South Korea, and others.
| Sometimes with signatures on paper, sometimes with threats of
| "don't even think about it".
|
| Now they are "all thinking about it". All of them: the
| countries with small populations, small armies,
| inconveniently located next to a larger bully like Russia or
| China.
|
| Here in Australia, the right wing government is prepping us
| to build nuclear weapons. We're acquiring nuclear-powered
| submarines that can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles and
| the only thing they're proposing in the next election is
| building dozens of nuclear power plants... that they admit
| will only fulfill maybe 4% of our energy needs... but 100% of
| our weapons-grade plutonium breeding needs.
|
| South Korea and Japan already have the nuclear plants.
|
| What do you think they're planning, now that they all see how
| worthless American promises are?
|
| Especially since yesterday's(!) events, when Trump was asked
| about AUKUS, the most important and closest military alliance
| the US is a part of _and he had no idea what it was_!
|
| This is why even close allies are tooling up for imminent
| global nuclear conflict.
|
| Because America elected a president that famously violates
| the terms of every contract he's ever signed.
|
| Twice. To make sure everyone got the message.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Japan is absolutely thinking about its own nuclear
| deterrent. The conventional diplomatic wisdom is that they
| can spin one up rapidly. Like most countries, they're
| deeply taken aback by the US trashing existing alliances
| and showing far more rhetorical aggression toward its
| neighbors than its supposed antagonists.
|
| https://www.irsem.fr/media/etude-irsem-93-albessard-japan-
| en...
| naravara wrote:
| They turned a country that is orders of magnitude more powerful
| and prosperous into a client state mostly through tweets and
| facebook slop.
|
| It's incredible, they'll be studying it for decades.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| Did you feel the same way when Hillary Clinton and the Obama
| administration helped Russia deal Uranium? Real question.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| There's much that is potentially shady about that deal, such
| as the Clintons receiving donations through the Clinton
| Foundation that were allegedly bribes for the Uranium One
| situation. Certainly Russian foreign investment in America,
| especially something sensitive like uranium, should raise
| eyebrows.
|
| But it's not clear there are direct or indirect ramifications
| for national security. Russia already has access to plenty of
| uranium.
|
| This was also at a time when Russia was looking like it
| wanted to become a peaceful member of the world community.
| They were not the adversary to a peaceful world that they are
| today.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-
| need...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One_controversy
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Do you feel the same about <insert nonsense>? RQ
| soerxpso wrote:
| In what way is it in my interest to give hundreds of billions
| of my nation's money toward fighting an unwinnable conflict on
| the other side of the world over which corrupt sex trafficking
| organization will control a small plot of land? The Cold War
| propaganda derangement that still exists in the minds of
| certain people is insane.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Because you want the world to trust that the US won't turn
| their backs on agreements _especially_ when it involves a
| country giving up their nukes. Which would have helped
| protect them.
| soerxpso wrote:
| Nobody in the US voted for that agreement. I want the world
| to notice that they need to stop treating my people like
| daddy's credit card. It's a shame that the previous
| occupying regime hated its constituents enough to make
| these insane agreements to try and loot us, but we
| definitely don't need to stick to them now just because of
| that.
| threeseed wrote:
| You don't vote for any policy or action.
|
| You vote for Presidents and politicians who act on your
| behalf.
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| So now just loot Ukraine, a country weakened by war. And
| blame their president in stead of the agressor. Oh and
| 'he said bad but unfortunately true things over the
| phone' so let's humiliate him in my only language while
| he's asking for help in his third language.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Yes, in the USA we vote for representatives who then make
| agreements on our behalf. That we don't have direct
| democracy on every level does not make our process
| undemocratic, and does not make all of our agreements
| null and void.
|
| I want my people to keep their basic agreements and
| promises so that the rest of the world continues to trust
| our dollar as a reserve currency and our stock market as
| a safe place to invest.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| What 'previous occupying regime'? You are not making much
| sense.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| The USSR never acted even half as hostile as Russia is acting
| towards the whole world, including the US and UK right now.
| Maybe you're not aware of that but Russian state TV routinely
| discusses the nuclear annihilation of the UK and the US, not
| just that of Europe. Current rhetoric from the Kremlin is way
| more hostile than it ever was during Cold War.
|
| You better put a stop to that by showing strength. Unless you
| want ignore history, that is.
| soerxpso wrote:
| The claim you're making is ludicrous. We don't show
| strength by giving away all of our resources on pointless
| conflicts that don't involve us. Even if the USSR was as
| nice as you pretend, Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and
| is being just as hostile to American interests.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Then your government needs to shut up instead of
| undermining the efforts of the rest of the free world to
| save Ukraine.
|
| However, it is worth noting that from a geopolitical
| perspective you're the one who is ludicrous.
| soerxpso wrote:
| That's literally what we're doing. Zelensky came to beg
| for more money, and we're shutting up. I don't really
| care if Europeans want to go die pointlessly on the
| frontlines for some reason.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| No, unfortunately you're not shutting up. Your government
| is currently pursuing a crazy pro Russia agenda.
| zeroCalories wrote:
| We're not giving away all our resources lmao. Support for
| Ukraine is a relatively small part of our budget and gdp.
| In return for this we get to significantly weaken and
| discourage our enemies. For every dollar that we pour in,
| Russia is losing many more. Iran and China's imperialist
| ambitions are crushed. And none of our people even needed
| to die for it. You're either a fool or an enemy if you
| don't see why we should support Ukraine.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many
| more
|
| It also can't be stated enough when dollar amounts are
| talked about...
|
| Much of the value sent to Ukraine was equipment that was
| already purchased and was warehoused. In a sense, that
| cost us nothing. Some of that equipment was already
| slated for replacement. The equipment that will need to
| be repurchased is primarily purchased from American
| companies.
|
| So it burns me up when people talk about how we sent $XYZ
| billion dollars of aid to Ukraine without understanding
| that the real cost to America was far far far less.
| zuppy wrote:
| oh, that's nice. tell me what country was the only one
| who invoked article 5 of the nato treaty? and which
| countries helped them? and now the the situation has
| reversed what does that country do?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as
| hostile to American interests."
|
| What does that even mean ... ?
|
| The former Soviet Bloc was under the yoke of the central
| committee in Moscow. The people involved had no say in
| the politics of the central committee, they were coerced.
| But once its power failed, the newly free countries
| mostly turned their backs on Russia in a hurry. Only
| Belarus stayed in the orbit.
|
| Contemporary Ukraine (or Lithuania, or Georgia) is not
| hostile to the US in any meaningful sense.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| giving away all of our resources
|
| You think $100-$200bn is "all of our resources?" I
| realize you're not being literal, but it's more like
| "less than 1% of our resources."
|
| https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-
| on-...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
|
| Reliable estimates put our total spend (over 3+ years) as
| $120-$180bn.
|
| The annual US military budget, $820bn (13% of the total
| government budget) or more like $2.4 trillion during that
| timespan.
|
| But even that purported $100-$200bn spend perhaps
| overstates the cost. Some was cash, some was equipment.
| The equipment sent their way was already bought and paid
| for. Much of it was later in its lifespan. And the US
| military obviously buys American whenever feasible, so
| money spent replacing that equipment stays in America. So
| the amount of money "spent" by America on this venture is
| highly debatable, with the real number being lower than
| those $100-$200bn totals. We don't show
| strength by blah blah blah
|
| Really? Because Russia looked weak as hell there, unable
| to conquer a small country that is using a fraction of
| our old stuff (and a hell of a lot of heart and
| ingenuity) that was gathering dust in warehouses. It
| certainly made it clear that in conventional warfare the
| distance between our two countries is rather vast.
| pointless conflicts that don't involve us
|
| I mean, people definitely said that when Germany invaded
| Poland. We shouldn't get involved in every conflict but
| we also should not ignore every conflict.
|
| I don't think Russia is trying to conquer Europe, but
| they are the single largest power and they have proven to
| be a highly destabilizing force.
| bartekpacia wrote:
| You don't understand anything.
| _fs wrote:
| > give hundreds of billions of my nation's money
|
| 30% of the US aid goes to ukraine for immediate local
| purposes, think humanitarian and and economic relief, the
| other 70% goes to us defense manufacturers, directly
| supporting american companies who then send their stock of
| weapons to ukraine. This 70% that goes directly to US
| companies is counted in the total aid provided
| soerxpso wrote:
| I can think of a hundred things we could have US defense
| contractors make instead. And it's surprising how quickly
| Democrats have begun worshiping the Military Industrial
| Complex. As recently as Bush, it was the boogeyman. Now I'm
| supposed to support shoveling money into it to burn? Why
| don't we spend $100B on having American workers build high-
| speed rail instead, or anything else more useful than
| drawing out an unwinnable conflict? All that would be
| purchased with this money is a lot more dead Ukrainians
| before it's over.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| This is severe whataboutism. I'm not a fan of the MIC,
| and much money given to it could be better spent on other
| things.
|
| But the reality is that money poured into the MIC to
| replace equipment we sent to Ukraine is not money that
| leaves the US economy, and it is absolutely essential to
| understand that when discussing the "cost" of this war to
| America.
| fatbird wrote:
| It's clearly not unwinnable. Russia is doing serious
| structural damage to its economy and can't get enough
| Russians to fight, so they're pulling North Koreans in
| (who think they're going to fight South Korea). At worst
| (for Ukraine), Russia is piling up dead bodies at a 2:1
| ratio, and in the process Ukraine is now the world's
| leading drone combatant. And all the whining that Trump
| has done about Europe not pulling its weight, is going to
| be answered with Europe now understanding that US aid is
| over and they're all publicly pledging to step in.
|
| And the US has more than enough money to build high speed
| rail _and_ continue or double its support for Ukraine.
| Available money isn 't the problem.
|
| The US has cleared out vast reserves of older armaments
| that they no longer have to pay to warehouse or retire
| safely. Besides most of that aid money going into
| American pockets, the inventory has been cycled for
| America's benefit.
|
| If the US had chosen to be a steadfast ally and actually
| help Ukraine win, it could have reaped the same rewards
| it received after WW2 once Ukraine won: rebuild it as a
| bastion of capitalism and democracy and let the rising
| tide lift all boats, _especially the leader 's_. Instead,
| you're walking away, destroying NATO and transatlantic
| co-operation in the process. And by doing so, you're
| making Europe independent of the US, when dependency on
| the US was the cornerstone of 80 years of peace in Europe
| as well as a strong world economy. Congratulations on
| kissing goodbye the very thing that's made America so
| wealthy and strong for the last 80 years.
| artem2471 wrote:
| There is currently an air raid siren in Kyiv. Because of
| US Kyiv has better air defense, so in case of rocket
| strike some would be intercepted. There are benefits to
| US aid.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| If you don't stand up to bullies like Putin, they continue to
| act as bullies.
|
| You cannot appease a bully. They will take what you gave them
| and then return to bullying you.
| krelian wrote:
| Exhibit A for level one thinking.
| titzer wrote:
| "In what way is it in my interest to give millions of my
| nation's money away to this filthy and corrupt justice system
| in an unwinnable fight against crime? I mean whether some
| mostly harmless serial killer offs two or three more people
| in southern Nebraska is none of my business--I can't possibly
| see how anything of this is connected or how it could ever
| affect me."
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| It sure looks like it.
|
| Let's ask the question - if Russia was able to compromise the
| US president, what action would he take ?
|
| I don't have answers very different from about what's going on
| right now.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| That's what I keep coming back to. If I were trying to harm
| American interests, what would I do differently?
|
| Nothing.
| mountainmonk wrote:
| Honestly I'm glad, for a bit there it seemed like there were
| some idiots that thought they could win in a direct conflict
| against Russia and China including going nuclear. Trump was the
| wost possible candidate in every aspect I can think of except
| one, he will put his self interest above everything else and is
| very flexible without any ideological beliefs that supercede
| his self interest.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| What is worse, risking nuclear annihilation or risking the
| end of democracy as a concept and fully inviting
| authoritarianism?
| mountainmonk wrote:
| Is this serious?. I think you got things mixed up a bit
| here I think you meant to say the opposite.
|
| The better comparison would be, would I rather have me, my
| kids and everyone I love die in a ball of fire or
| disease/hunger as society crumbles around us or risk the
| end of democracy and inviting authoritarianism?. I
| personally would always risk dictatorship, you can fight
| against dictators but not against death.
| y0ssar1an wrote:
| Appeasing nuclear bullies gets you _more_ nuclear bullying,
| not less.
|
| Because of Trump's betrayal of Ukraine, the whole world knows
| that US security guarantees don't mean anything. These
| security guarantees have prevented the spread of nuclear
| weapons. The US has treaties with dozens of countries
| promising a US nuclear response if the country is nuked.
| Therefore, those countries have not had to develop nuclear
| weapons.
|
| They do now. Their trust has been completely shattered. I
| guarantee you that formerly non-nuclear countries like South
| Korea, Japan, and half of Europe are now full speed ahead on
| secret nuclear weapons programs. Trump has destroyed the US-
| led world order and we're now on a much scarier timeline.
| Nuclear war is _more_ likely, not less.
| mountainmonk wrote:
| I think we have completely different views of things, how
| did Russia become the nuclear bully?. Are you aware of
| several nuclear pre-emptive strike plans that have been
| floating around lately in the U.S against Russia, how can
| the whole Ukraine 'organic' uprising be a thing when Russia
| is next door. Imagine if Canada suddenly went through an
| 'organic' uprising and decided it wanted to join the
| Chinese NATO equivalent, would anyone believe that possible
| without prior assurances?, how would the U.S respond?.
|
| The whole 51st state cannot be a Trump only thing, he is
| too stupid for that, more than likely its some plan that
| someone told him about it and he couldn't keep quiet about
| it. Take into account that the whole Ukraine owing the U.S
| half of its mineral wealth wasn't just a Trump thing, Biden
| was promoting it too but he was quiet about it.
|
| From my pov China and Russia have been the rational actors,
| the U.S is acting irrationally as it sees their influence
| crumble. They are unwilling to compete with China and want
| to go back to the good ol days when 'organic' coups would
| just happen whenever a government decided not to take
| whatever deal they offered.
|
| If anything, it is the U.S that is the nuclear bully.
| anonnon wrote:
| > The American government has been compromised by Russia
|
| Our government _was_ compromised by the Soviets during FDR 's
| administration. The cryptanalysis project _Venona_ alone
| uncovered over 350 Soviet operatives, including the chief
| advisor to FDR 's second Vice President (Henry A. Wallace), the
| Rosenbergs (whom leftists and American Jews for decades
| vehemently insisted were innocent, wrongly convicted, and
| unjustly executed), and Alger Hiss. Yet even after Venona was
| declassified in the 90s, the narrative still persists that this
| was all just a right-wing fever dream and that McCarthyism was
| nothing but a witch hunt:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
| sgnelson wrote:
| And now here we all are with the russian agents firmly
| entrenched in the GOP.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| A somewhat adjacent interpretation is that he doesn't care
| about democracy. And so why would he care if Ukraine got
| invaded. He wants to be a king or emperor or whatever. If Putin
| takes Ukraine the idea of kings being back gets more
| normalized.
| sigmarule wrote:
| I'm always cautious about saying something like this for fear
| of sounding hyperbolic. But good lord, watching this video
| right after reading about the administration's change in stance
| on Russian cyber threats [1] really chips away at any remaining
| room for ambiguity.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-
| russia...
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| You should continue to be cautious, as the Guardian article
| is pretty weak. It's first point is that Russia wasn't
| mentioned in a talk about cyber threats, which means very
| little by itself. It's second and final point comes from an
| "anonymous source". I'll believe it when the source becomes
| de-anonymized. Too many deep state "anonymous tips" have
| turned out to be lies. It should be noted that CISA has a
| history of strong leftwing activism:
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-cybersecurity-defense-
| age...
|
| https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-administration-
| colluded...
|
| Trump is not far right and never has been. He's actually
| moderate on most issues. The current far right position is
| the Tucker Carlson "isolation at all costs" and "Putin maybe
| isn't a bad guy" garbage. Trump holds neither of those views.
| sigmarule wrote:
| If it turns out that CISA analysts were truly told verbally
| to no longer focus or report on Russian threats, and if you
| assume this was done under Trump's direction or to align
| with his intent, would would your thoughts be?
|
| I'm not (yet) asserting that either of those two conditions
| are or aren't true, I'm just curious what your thoughts
| would be IF they were.
| submeta wrote:
| Actually it has been compromised by Israel, by AIPAC, acting
| against American interests, creating negative sentiments
| against Americans across the Middle East and even globally just
| to support a messianic far right government in Israel.
| casperc wrote:
| I might also mention elections being compromised. It is another
| clear target for Russia with an extremely high payoff. Feel
| certain they have not managed to hack the election?
| macinjosh wrote:
| This concept is so disingenuous. The earth is is big enough for
| Russian, China, and the US to coexist in peace. My country's
| spending should be spent in my country. Not liberating a land
| that has nothing to do with us.
| tootie wrote:
| That's incredibly sanguine. Russia has been annexing
| territory and this was a gambit to take a huge chunk by
| force. If they had rolled over Ukraine in weeks as many
| predicted they'd have pointed their guns at Belarus and
| Georgia and all the former satellites. Acquiescing is what we
| did to Hitler when he wanted the Sudetenland and he was not
| appeased by it.
|
| I'd also cite John Donne and say "no man is an island". Our
| "country" exists as an arbitrary artifact of history. If you
| are capable of caring about people you don't know then it
| shouldn't matter if they're from another state or another
| country.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| A plane can take you or your cargo to the other side of the
| world in a day, missiles can go much faster than that, and
| communications are instantaneous. The world is still a big
| place but it's naive to ignore the facts of technological
| interconnectedness.
| munchler wrote:
| I don't think Trump has the sophistication to be a Russian
| agent. The sad truth is just that he's wannabe dictator who
| admires Putin as a role model. Russia is as surprised at their
| luck as anyone else.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| "Russian agent" != trusted collaborator. It means they can
| use you. He's perfectly predictable/controllable using just
| flattery and greed, which petro terrorist states like Russia
| can utilize quite generously.
| munchler wrote:
| Sure. All I'm saying is that Russia doesn't need kompromat
| or some other illicit leverage over Trump. It's all
| happening in the open.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Trump is an open book, he says he wants the killing to stop
| and to save money, but saving lives is more important. Many
| people also believe this, and that failed negotiations and
| bad relations between NATO and Russia lead to this.
|
| It's not pro-Russian to want a conflict to end, it's terrible
| to think that not wanting people to continue to die is
| considered bad if it happens to include people of a specific
| nation who have little control over their leadership
| currently.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Zelensky would really like this war to end (he said so in
| the meeting), but he also realizes that Putin can't be
| trusted - give him an inch and he'll take a mile. The kind
| of "peace" that Trump wants is the "peace in our times" of
| Chamberlain or the "peace" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact -
| the kind of "peace" that ultimately leads to more war.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's useful to remember the distinction between an agent and
| an asset, which isn't under direct control but can be highly
| profitable to exploit.
| rowanseymour wrote:
| Your government is certainly compromised but is it Russia? A
| lobby group for a certain settler colony in the Middle East
| spent money on 80% of the seats up for election last year, and
| boasts of its ability to interfere with US elections. Jeffrey
| Epstein was linked with the intelligence services of that
| colony and who knows what he had on Trump and other top US
| politicians.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| All Putin has to do is not try to recreate the soviet union and
| the spice will flow
|
| Obviously he has a history of doing these prideful things just
| to remind people he has chips to play.
|
| But if he literally just didnt, there is upside for
| unprecedented economic development
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| As an American I've never been more ashamed of the leadership
| of my country. And really just ashamed of my country. Ashamed
| to be an American at this point in history.
|
| Zelensky has shown more bravery than Trump or Vance are even
| capable of and they decided to ambush and lecture him like
| that. Absolutely disgusting.
| marcusverus wrote:
| You're more embarrassed by Trump tactlessly trying to end the
| war in Ukraine than you are about anything in living memory?
| Is this a serious comment?
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| Honestly I think this is a bad take and I'm not exactly what
| one would call a "supporter" of the current administration.
|
| Americans get too wrapped up in the propaganda around Ukraine
| to even start to understand it. If your understanding of what's
| going on starts in 2022 and not, at least, back to 2014, then
| you're not really understanding what's going on.
|
| The conflict in Ukraine has, since the 2010s, has been about
| _fossil fuels_ and other mineral rights. Around that time oil
| and natural gas sources were found in all the regions currently
| being fought over.
|
| Ukraine, sadly, will always just be a pawn for the other major
| players. What we're seeing here is not "Russian interests being
| prioritized over American interests". This war has never been
| about what's good for the American people nor the Ukrainian
| people, but the companies that stand to benefit from extraction
| rights (Democrats as well as Republicans get their directions
| from billionaires, despite the song and dance to convince you
| otherwise).
|
| The prior administration had fairly strong support from and for
| European parties that wanted to partake of these resources. The
| change is really away from support for Europe in favor of two
| things: better relations with Russia, and more importantly,
| ending this thing. The "ending this thing" is not because of
| desires for peace, but because as long as there are bombs being
| dropped in this region nobody can extract anything from
| anywhere.
|
| People upset about this situation are living in a world that
| doesn't exist anymore. We're in the end game of industrial
| civilization and the rules have changed. The future is no
| longer infinitely bright and very soon the global economy will
| start to contract. Additionally we'll be seeing climate
| catastrophe ramp up dramatically in coming years. As the Arctic
| melts, Canada and Russia will effectively share a border
| (making Trump's other "crazy" idea, less "crazy"). Europe, once
| our obvious ally, will have increasingly less to offer the US
| in the coming decades.
|
| Europe, largely lacking in fossil resources, is going to
| increasingly find itself a minor player in global politics. The
| realpolitik of today is major oil producing nations realizing
| that conflict with each other will, at this phase of the game,
| do more harm then forming alliances.
| dboreham wrote:
| At least we know there's no deep state.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| > The American government has been compromised by Russia. It no
| longer represents American interests, but Russian interests.
|
| What kind of conspiracy theory is this? It makes no sense, at
| least have believable ones if you're going to promote them.
| marcusverus wrote:
| Blueanon is so hot right now.
| bedhead wrote:
| This is so stupid.
| colordrops wrote:
| Lots of words spilled in this thread about how the American
| government is now all of a sudden compromised but almost
| nothing as the US subserviently sent billions in weapons and
| aid to Israel to commit genocide for more than a year now. Most
| Americans are extreme hypocrites with blinders on. This country
| has been compromised by Israel for far longer, and in a much
| worse way.
| fny wrote:
| What happened was incredibly bad diplomacy, but this take is
| frankly hysterical.
|
| The Trump administration believes cozying up to Russia will
| draw them away from China. The Trump administration also
| believes relieving sanctions will cause commodity prices to
| drop.
|
| And they are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus for those
| privileges along with some minerals.
|
| This is undeniably good for the American economy, but at a
| moral price.
| throwawayforare wrote:
| I'm seriously considering leaving the U.S. I can't justify
| paying taxes to a government that leaves me feeling
| disheartened. The EU should have visa programs for skilled
| professionals looking to leave the U.S.
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Frustrating that the US will still apply income tax even if
| you're working abroad (I want to say over $130k/yr, but that
| could be wrong)
| jemmyw wrote:
| It does but most western countries have a double-tax
| agreement with the US so you won't end up paying any tax to
| the US
| jemmyw wrote:
| The following EU countries offer skilled worker visas:
| Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Denmark. Also non-EU
| places such as Aus and NZ.
| thuridas wrote:
| I am starting to believe the theory that Trump was a Russian
| agent
| yaksha wrote:
| How is it not in American interest to stop wasting money on a
| proxy war? Yes, Russia should not have invaded Ukraine, but
| they did and they have basically won.
|
| If news reports are at all accurate, our military isn't as
| great as we think (our of resources to send to Ukraine, poor
| ability to resupply quickly) it is and the theater of war has
| changed to be more drone focused than ever before.
|
| Why have there been next to no peace talks since the beginning
| of the war? How much more money will we spend on another
| quagmire of intervention? There are plenty of issues here at
| home that need more attention and money than this proxy war.
| Like our unsustainable debt.
| elcritch wrote:
| > America is experiencing a decapitation strike, and our
| military is not defending us from these domestic enemies.
|
| There we go, democracy is fine until it goes against the
| "liberal" zeitgeist. It's not really liberalism just like "far
| right" now seems to be regularly slapped onto viewpoints which
| were considered normal or even centrist a decade or two ago. It
| dilutes any chance of actual conversation between right and
| left.
|
| Though yes the US military, rather state department, does
| openly fund political manipulation abroad via USAID. It's not
| humanitarian aid, or rather, the humanitarian aid is a side
| effect at best, as even liberal publications recognize [2, 3].
| However like the OP here, there's increasing trends toward
| using USAID programs to "protect" America from stupid Americans
| who begin to "wrong-think" about things. The UK has a similar
| problem where public funding is used to influence politics
| where it's easy to see the absurdity [1].
|
| I'm sorry but a few bots on X don't compromise Americans and
| make them some sort of far right extremists any more than me
| reading Lord of the Rings or 1984 does. We do need to protect
| ourselves from actual sabotage, bribery, etc but not use it as
| an excuse for blanket manipulation.
|
| Yeah, that should be an absolute no on even considering it. The
| US military and state department apparatus does not have a role
| in deciding what Americans should believe.
|
| 1:
| https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/right-w...
| 2: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/usaid-trump-
| musk-... 3: https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/foreign-aid-is-
| unpopular
| jameslk wrote:
| The former reality tv star is good at reality tv. What's usually
| kept behind closed doors is now out in open, because it makes for
| great viewership. People gobble this up, which has given the
| reality tv star endless attention
|
| Hacker News has fallen victim to the reality tv star's antics
| a_ba wrote:
| HN didn't fall victim to the reality tv star's antics. The
| audience he's trying to impress has fallen victim to the
| believe that the antics of a reality tv star make for a good
| president.
| jameslk wrote:
| Hacker News has most definitely fallen victim to the antics,
| given how many times said antics have popped up on HN
| recently and have been flagged. I'm flagging these posts and
| I will keep flagging them too
|
| e.g.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43198759
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43121467
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43110333
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43033493
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43033275
| bongodongobob wrote:
| This isn't just trolling or good TV. It's doing severe and
| permanent damage to US foreign policy.
| jameslk wrote:
| Both can be simultaneously true
| surfpel wrote:
| Are you talking about Trump or Zelensky here?
| jameslk wrote:
| Haha, every politician is learning that they win by
| manipulating the press and algorithms these days. Is there an
| option C for both?
| surfpel wrote:
| > these days
|
| I would argue all days
|
| > Is there an option C for both
|
| absolutely :)
| racktash wrote:
| Trump pardoned the January 6th rioters for the benefit of a
| certain segment of his supporter base. I have a feeling his
| childish humiliation of Zelensky is more of the same.
|
| It's no coincidence he dropped a "World War 3" reference, a
| common talking point of a certain segment of the online populist
| right (to be clear, this isn't to say some fear about such a
| scenario is unjustified; only to point out that it is cynically
| used to steer the discussion about the Ukrainian in a certain
| direction).
|
| Shame on everyone who continues to be an apologist for this
| administration. People can make mistakes - I've supported my fair
| share of dodgy people in the past - but anyone who doesn't see
| things clearly at this point isn't looking.
| atemerev wrote:
| The "certain segment of his supporter base" is now completely
| managed by Russians in their information / cognitive domain.
| picafrost wrote:
| I find it utterly bizarre that some Americans seem to be under
| the delusion that the US ceasing its military support for Ukraine
| will somehow save lives. It is the same kind of delusion that
| causes President Trump to list off the US presidents under which
| Putin has disregarded its negotiated deals with, but obviously
| that would never happen under his watch.
|
| I suspect that this exchange will become an infamous moment in
| history. Utterly shameful.
| nverno wrote:
| If the US stops support would the war end? I don't really think
| so, but maybe. If it did, though, I would guess lives would be
| saved. That doesn't seem like a delusion.
| guax wrote:
| How? If all support for Ukraine crumbles and russia just
| plows ahead, do you think the ukranian population would be
| safer?
|
| The only "less lives" approach would be if russia retreats in
| an agreement to keep the previous separatist regions they
| annexed while accepting some sort of buffer inside Ukraine
| from them on, which Zelensky would agree in the form of bases
| or nato membership. Which Russia will never go for.
| labrador wrote:
| I try to look at actions and not words. Trump/Musk have not shut
| off Starlink yet, but maybe this manufactured confrontation is a
| prelude to that? It also seems to me that Europe could adequately
| support Ukraine in defending itself, so maybe it matters less
| what America thinks and more what Europe thinks.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| We'll see in what way Putin will respect Trump. I wouldn't be
| surprised if they both want nothing to do with the US anymore.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| Please donate drones to Ukraine
| https://www.dronesforukraine.fund/
| at0mic22 wrote:
| Great idea!
|
| Though we learned the hard way what "dontate to ukraine" means
|
| [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-biggest-charity-
| helping-u...
| thrance wrote:
| Shame on republicans who voted for Trump. Why are none of you
| confronting him when he claims insane shit like "Ukraine started
| the war"? Have you gone full doublethink? Or are you actually
| just fine with allying with fascist Putin against Ukraine and
| Europe?
| gs17 wrote:
| > Why are none of you confronting him when he claims insane
| shit like "Ukraine started the war"?
|
| Unfortunately, many of them have eaten enough propaganda that
| they agree. I have an uncle who genuinely believes that, even
| if he can't fully explain how it could make sense.
| matthest wrote:
| I don't agree with the execution, but here's what I think this is
| what Trump is really trying to do:
|
| Right now, it's basically the US vs Russia and China.
|
| But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU +
| Russia vs China.
|
| In order for this to happen though, the EU must build their own
| military.
|
| The EU could and should be a superpower, but they're not. Instead
| they're living off the US military.
|
| The US has been gently trying to get EU to boost its own
| spending. This goes as far back as Obama, and maybe even further
| back.
|
| The difference is that Obama was somewhat passive aggressive with
| his approach. Whereas Trump is tearing off the band aid.
|
| The public belligerence and positioning against the EU is an
| effort to kick them out of the parents' basement and get their
| act together.
|
| Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0
| clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.
| tootie wrote:
| Handy rule of thumb: Nobody plays 4d chess. Especially with
| Trump, what you see is what you get. He does not have a complex
| ulterior motive. He is capitulating to Russia because he thinks
| it will be better for himself personally.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU
| + Russia vs China.
|
| This makes no sense when put up against reality. The US is
| alienating the EU, throwing Ukraine under the bus, alienating
| NATO (major military alliance) and Five Eyes (major
| intelligence alliance) just so they can bring Russia in to the
| fold with the US and EU? How, the US won't be partnered with
| the EU at this rate.
| matthest wrote:
| The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years
| down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU
| would still be more likely to ally with the US then China.
|
| The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating
| them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually
| get serious about building military.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| In the EU, right-wing parties continue to grow. AfD, National
| Front, and others have all recently scored their highest
| levels of support. It is not impossible to imagine that they
| will eventually cross the threshold to actually governing,
| and at that point, the EU and Trump will be much more
| aligned.
|
| That's what Trump is betting on, and I'm not sure he will
| lose (as much as I would like him to lose).
| walls wrote:
| > Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I
| have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.
|
| I'm sure if you keep fantasizing you'll be able to make up an
| excuse for that, too.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU
| + Russia vs China.
|
| And his plan to achieve that is by pissing off EU? If anything
| Trump has done a great job to make EU look at China more
| favorably.
| matthest wrote:
| Copy/pasting from below:
|
| The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years
| down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU
| would still be more likely to ally with the US than China.
|
| The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating
| them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually
| get serious about building military.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| The reason why the EU never "got serious" about building
| military after WW2 was mainly due to US interference.
|
| The EU actually spends quite a lot in defense, but does so
| very inadequately. Each country has their own army, so
| there's a lot of overlap in spending. I actually think that
| now that the US is essentially an enemy nation, EU will be
| forced to integrate more, as that's the only way it can
| pose a meaningful response. That can only be a good thing.
|
| Also, I think you are underestimating how much the US is
| alienating EU in this, and how badly it is damaging
| relations. Trust is something you earn in droplets but lose
| in buckets.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Poisoning the relationship with the EU is not going to achieve
| this. Oh, and I'd put money on a rapprochement with China of
| some sort happening.
| temporallobe wrote:
| I am an independent and Trump supporter. I generally like his
| shows of strength, but I didn't like the confrontational nature
| of this exchange. It lacked diplomacy and respect. Trump yelling
| things like "you're gambling with World War 3" was inappropriate
| and aggressive, especially considering he was a guest. This
| caused an unprecedented tension between wrokd leaders on live TV
| and in my opinion has the potential to spiral out of control.
|
| To quote Dean Acheson from Thirteen Days, "Hopefully cooler heads
| will prevail before we reach the next step."
| pjc50 wrote:
| > generally like his shows of strength
|
| I hope you're going to enjoy the Ukrainian deaths that will be
| carried out for your entertainment.
| graublau wrote:
| What an ugly thing to say.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's a live war with thousands of dead a month. Of course
| it's ugly.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| This type of comment is why users flag submissions.
|
| Thankfully there are many other better comments (and the
| submission itself is unique).
| pcj-github wrote:
| I just honestly cannot fathom how you voted for this person and
| somehow surprised by this. Were you just not paying attention
| since 2016?
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > I generally like his shows of strength
|
| The US has the nuclear trident, the Ohio ICBMs nuclear
| submarines, the Gerald Ford Class Carriers, the thousands of
| Minutemen delivering warheads in 20 minutes or less, the 1st,
| 2nd and 3rd Air Force in the World...
|
| All of that, not to mention the soft power precisely in order
| to avoid having to pull this sort of BS in the oval office
|
| The US strenght is the system , not the dude in the expensive
| house on Penn Avenue with the nice plane. He very rarely adds
| something but can absolutely throw lots of the systemic effort
| down the sink
| NickC25 wrote:
| Donald Trump doesn't show stregnth, if anything, he's
| cosplaying as an effeminate she-male with the lifts, the
| makeup, and the wig.
|
| Donald Trump is not a strong man. He is a weak baby with no
| self-control and very little knowledge about anything useful.
|
| He also sucks at golf.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Today was probably _the_ end of the post- cold-war liberal
| consensus.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| Yeah. I keep thinking that this is going to be analogous to
| Chamberlain's "Peace with honor" moment in terms of how it sits
| in the historical narrative in 50 years.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Chamberlain had a reason - UK army wasn't really ready for a
| fight. He tried to buy some time to rearm. Misguided or not,
| you could say there was a reason for that.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| I agree with both you and AnotherGoodName - I should have
| been clearer.
|
| It's not that I think Trump's actions here are equivalent.
| They are pretty clearly worse in motivation and objective.
|
| I just think that we're going to head into a dark time for
| the world, and that future history books (if 2025-2035 goes
| roughly like 1935-1945, which I'm starting to think would
| be a _horrific_ but "better than can reasonably be
| expected" outcome) that what happened at the White House
| today will occupy a similar place - a sort of last pretense
| of diplomacy before the storm, where one of the
| participants (Hitler in the original, Trump here) was never
| honestly interested in peace, just what they could gain in
| the short term via extortion.
|
| Not identical situations, but ones that rhyme.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Warren Buffett knows what's cooking.
| chgs wrote:
| Chamberlain had seen many young people die needleasly in
| the nationalist ravages of the First World War and was
| trying everything to stop that from happening again, while
| rearming.
|
| Not sure if he was misguided but he was certainly
| relatable. There are two solid reasons right there, that
| might notice been enough, but it certainly wasn't a clear
| right vs wrong.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Wow this is just so sad and shameful. Zelensky obviously
| understands the position he and his country are in and even with
| all that disrespect from the US leadership he's obviously trying
| so hard to maintain composure and do what's best :(
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Saw it live, and was legit feeling a panic like, this is the end.
|
| Timely. Netflix has series "Turning Point: the Bomb and the Cold
| War" that is a good watch while the world burns.
| graublau wrote:
| Watching Netflix shows is a horrible way of learning about
| nuances of international conflicts.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| I think 'nuance' has left the building.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| It should be crystal clear now who the leader of the free world
| really is.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| That'll be water for the Russian propaganda. America, what have
| you chosen. It's clear you have a Russian insurgent in the White
| House.
|
| They have already started dismantling the government. Next
| they'll shake up the military. Every totalitarian regime shakes
| up the military.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Next they'll shake up the military.
|
| "Next?"
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pushes-out-top-us-gen...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| I was being sarcastic. I'm sorry, I am trying not to be
| passive aggressive, exactly in that order.
| jjulius wrote:
| Hah, my bad for missing it. ;)
| unsui wrote:
| We've crossed the Rubicon, where sarcasm is no longer
| indistinguishable from reality.
| rco8786 wrote:
| > Next they'll shake up the military.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/trump-brown-joint-chiefs-of-staff...
| rkagerer wrote:
| Full video of the entire meeting https://youtu.be/um19Mf4dYes
| rkagerer wrote:
| At 11m40s in it still seemed to be going well... an almost
| adorable exchange between the two leaders about who gave more
| EU or US.
| bdcp wrote:
| DT: "This is good TV"
|
| Wow!
| fullshark wrote:
| That stuck out to me too, that's where his head was at...just
| astonishing.
| baobabKoodaa wrote:
| they say i have the best ratings, beautiful ratings, big,
| huge ratings, and they never talk about that even though
| our ratings are the best, can you imagine that, they would
| rather talk about BIDEN, even though biden was the
| stupidest president, and did nothing for our country,
| absolutely nothing, a disgrace, really
| gorbachev wrote:
| It's all about appearances with him, all the time.
|
| The best way to get him to do something you want, is to
| stroke his ego, make him look good publicly.
| losvedir wrote:
| This is very interesting, thanks for posting. It starts out
| very positively anyway.
| angrytechie wrote:
| What's really infuriating to me is the way in which members of
| the startup world -- people who claim to wear the mantle of
| creators and builders -- have actively supported this nonsense.
| A16Z, Founders Fund, Sequoia all talk a big game about America
| being the greatest nation on the planet, and then turn around and
| back this regime in a naked grab for power and money. The
| hypocrisy is astounding.
| pcj-github wrote:
| Yes, it's completely spineless.
|
| For all the intelligence they seem to purport, being complicit
| in supporting the takedown of democracy and the once good name
| of the US... Catastrophe for business, the startup world, and
| innovation.
|
| Don't s** where you sleep.
|
| And all those crypto bros thinking this would be a good
| thing... They seemed to forget that blockchain participation is
| essentially a luxury item. A dead economy is awful for crypto.
| kibwen wrote:
| By definition it's not possible for fascists to be hypocrites,
| because fascists do not use language to describe the world or
| pursue the truth, they only use language to gain power. If you
| accuse them of hypocrisy you've already lost, because you've
| failed to realize that they're not even playing the same game
| as you are. It's like accusing a Markov chain of being a
| hypocrite; you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature your
| opponent.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| History will hopefully record how quickly they bowed to fascism
| when it benefited them.
| tlogan wrote:
| Zelensky needs to step down for the sake of Ukraine and its
| people. He fails to grasp a critical reality: criticizing Trump
| is a mistake. Instead, he should focus on praising him--
| highlighting his intelligence, leadership, and appeal. More
| importantly, he must recognize that Ukraine's survival depends on
| continued US support. Without the US, the country risks ceasing
| to exist.
| pcj-github wrote:
| Zelensky is not responsible for this exchange. Are you honestly
| suggesting cower to a false autocrat? That is not leadership.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| you can't beg someone to come save you, then shit on them in
| the same conversation ...in what world would anyone expect a
| warm reception to that?
| guax wrote:
| Thinking like this is what will take the US further into
| isolation. Everyone wants to engage and help a nice big
| brother. No one likes a bully, they will nod and agree when
| required but in the end America last is the main thing going on
| everyones mind right now.
|
| The mere unreliability of the government in keeping a narrative
| and position from one week to the next much less from one
| administration to the other is enough to alienate the allies.
| Count in annexation talks, tariff war as a negotiation gun.
|
| If having US help requires kissing the president ass instead of
| being an ally and sharing of the American ideals, the US as it
| pretended to be, does not exist anymore.
| sirolimus wrote:
| Zelensky has said he will step down if US provides security
| guarantees. Source:
| https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-resig...
| sirolimus wrote:
| ...security guarantees which the US does not want to give. So
| who's at fault here?
| analognoise wrote:
| That was the most shameful thing I've ever seen as an American.
|
| Where is Congress? This needs to stop; impeach Trump already!
| fullshark wrote:
| Not gonna happen, the only hope is his approval ratings tank
| and he decides to chill out, stop trying to be king, play golf
| for 4 years, and step away beloved by his cult.
| mempko wrote:
| This is what a falling empire looks like. America First is a
| project to dismantle the U.S. empire and reduce it to just
| another country.
| lovegrenoble wrote:
| Like a misbehaving child called into the principal's office
| sgalbincea wrote:
| Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in
| less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.
| ben_w wrote:
| Regime change in Russia.
|
| Putin is the one who started it, and he can stop it any time.
|
| Anyone else can only get the peace of surrendering to a violent
| dictator willing to conquor.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I don't mean to rain on your parade, but humor me for a
| second.
|
| Let's say that Putin is not the only person in Russian
| leadership who supports war with Ukraine. What then? I mean
| we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse.
|
| I know. I know. That would never happen in a million years.
| But humor me. What then? Do we have a plan for "we took out
| Putin and it didn't change anything"?
|
| Or is this whole thing just a fly by the seat of the pants
| kind of thing?
| ben_w wrote:
| > I don't mean to rain on your parade, but humor me for a
| second.
|
| Feel free, this is no parade for me. And if anyone is
| taking me seriously*, they need serious alternatives to my
| beliefs.
|
| * which would be their first mistake, as I'm a software
| engineer not a geopolitical military analyst
|
| > I mean we get rid of Putin, and the next guy is worse
|
| What would "worse" look like?
|
| Putin is already at war, has a massive propaganda network
| and fake elections, yet still feels unable to have another
| round of mobilisation due to the internal political
| fallout.
|
| Putin is already threatening nuclear weapons, has already
| updated doctrine -- "The doctrine now says an attack from a
| non-nuclear state, if backed by a nuclear power, will be
| treated as a joint assault on Russia." -
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4v0rey0jzo
|
| The only way to be worse, is to actually use them.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _The only way to be worse, is to actually use them._
|
| Then you're starting to see my point.
| Xeamek wrote:
| So when your country will be attacked you will give up your
| lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?
| faebi wrote:
| Absolutely yes
| Xeamek wrote:
| Really? Even if that would result with your new living
| conditions to be literally North Korea style or the worst
| of islamic terrorist state?
| castlefreak wrote:
| Have you spoken to any Moscovites about living standards
| recently? Like this is so stupid. I would not trade for
| Russia's brutal treatment of dissidents but we don't
| exactly have a great record on that front in Western
| countries...
| Xeamek wrote:
| You know what hypothetical question is?
| wilg wrote:
| skill issue
| castlefreak wrote:
| My country had a coup in 2014 in order to install a leader
| friendly to US intel agencies. "Freedoms" were already
| flimsy.
| Xeamek wrote:
| Who led the coup in "your" country?
| johnisgood wrote:
| Do boundaries matter more than people dying? Genuine
| question.
| Xeamek wrote:
| Depends on specific boundaries, but literally all of human
| history is about fighting for people's rights to hold one
| boundary or another
| johnisgood wrote:
| By boundaries I am referring to the geographical ones,
| might not be the best term.
|
| Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it
| meant millions of people not dying, would people go for
| it?
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Probably yes, but he premise is wrong. You know P being a
| villain and all that.
| Xeamek wrote:
| So just borders?
|
| In the end, it's the people who fight that determine if
| the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives.
| Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it
| were only lines on the map, then the people probably
| wouldn't choose to die for them, would they?
|
| Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up
| their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them
| they can't?
|
| It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the
| Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth
| the costs of their lives.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I am not going to tell them they can't, they can do as
| they see fit, of course.
|
| It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my
| family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people,
| or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an
| answer.
|
| Some people may believe "less people dying" is always
| favorable.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's not "boundaries".
|
| It's about living in a democracy.
|
| Is it worth dying to ensure your children live in a
| democracy where they have control over their future?
|
| Or is it better to allow a dictatorship like Russia to
| engulf your country, and your children grow up under
| authoritarianism?
|
| It's not boundaries as much as an invading political system
| you despise.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I was referring to those specific territories Russia
| claimed to want.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Russia wants all of Ukraine. They tried to invade Kyiv.
|
| So I'm talking about those specific territories -- all of
| Ukraine.
|
| You don't really think that giving up the territory
| Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from
| advancing further?
| johnisgood wrote:
| Why did they try to invade Kyiv exactly? To take it?
|
| > You don't really think that giving up the territory
| Russia has taken already is going to stop Russia from
| advancing further?
|
| I honestly do not know. If they do, then it requires
| military intervention.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Why did they try to invade Kyiv exactly? To take it?_
|
| Yes.
|
| > _If they do, then it requires military intervention._
|
| Yes. That is the military intervention that Ukraine is
| continuing to take against Russia currently.
|
| Does it all make sense now? Why Ukraine shouldn't just
| let itself be invaded, in order to avoid deaths?
| johnisgood wrote:
| But does it actually avoid deaths though? One of them
| will have to stop, if neither does, there will be more
| bloodshed, that is a given, right? If Putin does not
| stop, shouldn't Zelensky do?
| louthy wrote:
| Ask the people who tried to scale the Berlin wall before
| the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Oh, you can't, because
| they're dead. Shot. Because they were on the wrong side of
| the boundary.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Well, that is people dying. I personally want less people
| dying, by whatever means necessary.
| ben_w wrote:
| Short term, or medium term?
|
| Because short term survival means surrender, followed by
| the medium term getting conscripted by Putin as cannon
| fodder to go after the next country.
| johnisgood wrote:
| > getting conscripted by Putin as cannon fodder to go
| after the next country.
|
| Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits?
| Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to
| happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt
| to do it?
| ben_w wrote:
| > Is it not just speculation? Does it have any merits?
| Would he do it? What makes you think that it is going to
| happen, that he wants to do it? Could he actually attempt
| to do it?
|
| Having already done it three times:
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
|
| 3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/russia-forces-
| ukrainians...
| corinroyal wrote:
| Fewer
| jimbohn wrote:
| Take the chance to freshen up on eastern European history
| and the absolute dark footprint that russia has cast on it
| during the centuries. There is a reason why eastern
| europeans would rather die than be under russian
| occupation. It's not just about borders, it's about
| oppression, torture, destruction, and then borders again in
| a few years. To STILL not see what the russian world is
| about is truly an exercise in idiocy. Sorry, I had to
| answer a genuine question with a genuine statement
| johnisgood wrote:
| > why eastern europeans would rather die than be under
| russian occupation.
|
| From what I gathered, people above a certain age say that
| their country was better under Soviet Union.
| Additionally, people say (probably rightly so) that Orban
| is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
| jimbohn wrote:
| >From what I gathered, people above a certain age say
| that their country was better under Soviet Union
|
| Assuming this is true, it's because these are soviet
| leftovers who had a low education, were indoctrinated
| from a young age, and lived during the dream phase where
| you were told what to do, where to live, etc. Then came
| the bill when everything collapsed because this didn't
| work. I can make everybody happy tomorrow by emptying the
| state coffers and institutionalizing national NEETDOM,
| can't promise our happiness will last long but we can
| try! And regardless of what they think, it was shit.
|
| Edit: about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke
| right?
| johnisgood wrote:
| > about "why is Orban pro-putin?", this is a joke right?
|
| No, genuine question, he is Eastern European. Let us go
| further, they claim Hungary is pro-Russian, how come?
| jimbohn wrote:
| No, I'd rather not spend my time on what seems to be a
| promising exercise in moving the goalpost. Not sure I'd
| classify hungary as eastern European (I was mostly
| referring to slavs) but sure you can find at least a pro
| russian guy among eastern europeans, especially dictator
| ones.
| 827a wrote:
| Yeah, at the end of the day its hard to agree with the language
| and demeanor of the administration, but I struggle to disagree
| with the outcome. What are Zelensky's aims? To secure
| additional funding for their war machine? If so: I don't see
| how that benefits anyone; certainly not the Ukrainian people.
| If the goal is to secure more favorable peace terms, which I
| _do_ believe is a laudable goal, then I fail to understand why
| he approached this conversation the way he did. Insinuating
| that the Trump administration had aligned with Russia,
| regardless of its validity, is not the way to accomplish this.
| nikaspran wrote:
| A ceasefire without security guarantees is just a temporary
| pause for russia to rearm and continue on. None of the
| justifications for russia's invasion have changed, and this
| would mean the US will roll over for anything.
| 827a wrote:
| Sure; so maybe his focus should be on attaining those
| security guarantees. If not from the United States, then
| from other countries; is the United States the only World
| Police on the globe? Why is the Moral Onus on the United
| States to be the only ones willing to say "Yeah if you
| invade Ukraine again we'll put boots on the ground"; why
| isn't anyone asking Germany, or the UK, or Poland, to make
| those some guarantees to Ukraine? I mean, sure, there's
| genuine concerns about Article 5 if anyone in NATO makes
| those guarantees, I don't know what the impact of that
| would be, but looking past that for a second: Its utterly
| insane to me how much of this conversation involves placing
| some kind of Moral Responsibility on a country half the
| world away from the conflict.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| > and this would mean the US will roll over for anything.
|
| This is a war between Ukraine and Russia, not the US.
| Nobody should want western powers to enter this war because
| of the potential consequences. But if western powers make
| security guarantees, isn't that what you risk?
| avianlyric wrote:
| What exactly do you think the outcome is? Just because Trump
| is selling out Ukraine to Putin, doesn't mean the Ukraines
| are just going to lie down and take it.
|
| What are Zelensky's aims, they're pretty damn obvious, do
| everything in his power to remove a foreign aggressor from
| Ukrainian land. Why would expect people who have been invaded
| to _not_ defend their country and their land?
| 827a wrote:
| I generally expect that a country's leader should do
| everything in their power to defend their country, land,
| and people, as you say. Of course, what we're talking about
| here is: Zelenskyy's power is not infinite, no one's is,
| and today he spoke with an administration that is far more
| realistic and desirable of peace than the previous one. My
| question was: What was Zelenskyy's aim in speaking to the
| administration today; not what were his general aims.
|
| Look: I do not believe the world will be a more peaceful
| and prosperous place if America continues the path of
| providing billions of dollars in weapons and military aid
| to the Ukraine war effort. My question to others is: Do you
| believe I'm wrong in this assessment, and that the world
| _will_ be more peaceful and more prosperous if we continue
| funding this war? Or, is it that: Do you believe that Peace
| and Prosperity are not Generally Good things we should
| strive to achieve?
|
| Is the aim to negotiate for peace, and in that negotiation
| ensure Russia gets nothing? If so, do you believe that to
| be a realistic thing Ukraine can ask for right now? Even if
| the United States is brokering the negotiation, and wants
| this for Ukraine, what can the United States bring to the
| table to help make it happen? Is your suggestion that the
| United States go so-far as to guarantee Ukraine's security
| through direct military intervention?
|
| That's where my brain is at on this; its a horrible
| situation, but if the goal we're optimizing toward is Peace
| and Prosperity, and I believe those goals to be laudable,
| and if we admit that the United States is not All Powerful
| (as proven by our billions in military aid up to this point
| not as of yet Increasing Peace and Prosperity in the
| region): What options does the United States have left to
| help Ukraine? Do you want to lace up your boots and go to
| war for them? Or, is it just, do you want to send them
| another hundred billion in military aid, so the war can
| continue in a stalemate for another three years?
| oezi wrote:
| You assume that Putin wants a cease fire or peace. But he
| doesn't.
|
| Zelenskies aim is for his country not to be conquered. There
| are no open demands from Russia to satisfy.
| vsean wrote:
| > Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result
| in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.
|
| There's a logical flaw in what you are saying. Forcing Ukraine
| to accept a truce right now, without any security guarantees
| will result in a LOT MORE deaths. Russia will re-arm, using
| their oil and gas money, and in a year finish the job. Right
| now, Ukraine can hang on, but if Russia gets its shit together
| during a truce it's game over.
|
| What could happen is that they negotiates a truce with security
| guarantees from the US or at the very least a no-fly zone. But
| Trump doesn't want that, Trump doesn't want to do anything, he
| want mineral rights to offset the cost of the last president
| gave Ukraine (Not $350 bn, that number is lies, its ~$70bn),
| asking for $400bn rare earths and other metals. I can only
| assume he will only give new weapons under the same terms. A
| shameful shakedown. And even if Ukraine agrees to this, Trump
| has said he won't enforce a no-fly zone or give a security
| guarantee.
|
| The best thing Trump and the US can do from now on is just to
| not get involved in teh war. I can see Trump supporting Putin
| out of spite.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Hahaha, do you honestly believe that Putin has any interest in
| stopping?
|
| This isn't the first time Putin has invaded another country,
| had the west capitulate for "peace", then two years later Putin
| invades somewhere else.
|
| Hell, Putin originally invade Ukraine and annexed Crimea. Every
| one made "pease" with Putin, and few years later he invades the
| rest of Ukraine. If Trump sell out Ukraine now, it might end
| the "official" war, but there will be endless civil/insurgency
| warfare in Ukraine for decades. The Ukraine's have zero
| interest in allowing a foreign country simply take their land
| without a fight.
| lawn wrote:
| Russia must be made to kneel, just as Germany and Japan had to
| in WW2.
|
| Any other "peace treaty" will only lead to Russia rebuilding
| and attacking again, leading to yet another war, having learned
| the important lesson that aggression works.
|
| We want it to stop NOW, but that's wishful thinking just as
| world peace is. The sooner you internalize that, the better.
| a_ba wrote:
| Deterrence works. That's why the cold war is remembered as the
| cold war and not the hot war. Zelensky knows this while Trump
| is publicly taking all leverage (NATO membership, security
| guaranties) off the table while the Russians have not even
| started negotiating - and why would they? Trump is doing all
| their work for them
| NickC25 wrote:
| Sure - moving a few dozen nuclear warheads to Kiev and telling
| Russia "Kiev has nukes now, make one step further into Ukraine
| and we'll make sure they'll hit the Kremlin by end of day
| today".
|
| And then tell Putin "hey Putain, feel free to call our bluff".
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Putin: "Thanks for heads up as I left Kremlin. Also don't
| mind the ICBM to Washington and NYC"
|
| Nuclear war couldn't be won.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| I don't know. People used to say during the Cold War that
| deterrence works. If it doesn't work, a nuclear war is
| unavoidable anyway.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Might as well get it over with at that point. If Putin does
| decide to strike first, yeah, Washington or NYC gets hit.
| OK. We'll live. Russia will be flattened by the entire
| world's nukes at that point, and the likes of China will be
| inclined to join in on the fun and take a whole bunch of
| Russian land.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _Washington or NYC gets hit. OK. We 'll live._
|
| Clearly, you're unfamiliar with the prosecution of a
| nuclear conflict.
|
| I wouldn't count on NYC being the only place hit. In
| fact, I wouldn't count on any of our port cities and even
| any mainland military infrastructure surviving the
| initial strike. Additionally, energy infrastructure would
| be severely crippled. None of that even counts the
| disruption to electronics and communication wrought by
| the EMP blasts. And no, none of it's coming back. I can
| assure any Russian readers that the same would happen to
| you in a nuclear exchange with us. The initial strikes
| would be unfortunate for europe, as I think they would
| likely fare the worst.
|
| But as bad off as we'd all be, the worst would be yet to
| come. The secondary strikes are where the knockout blows
| would be dealt.
|
| Nuclear war, ( _any_ war really), is raw and nasty. Don
| 't expect "limited" strikes. By your own admission, we
| would send a massive retaliatory strike to Russia. It
| defies logic for them to send a limited strike our way.
| That's not how nuclear war works.
| valine wrote:
| There is no alternative. Europe tried to peacefully coexist
| with Germany in the 1930s. Standing up to imperialist dictators
| is the least bloody option.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| And you stop it now - no security guarantees for Ukraine - and
| more people will die in few years when Russia strikes back,
| having rearmed herself.
| oezi wrote:
| Europe needs to deploy troops to Ukraine to secure the current
| border.
|
| No other way from stoping Putin.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Right. Just when America pulls back, Europe should escalate.
| Awesome!
|
| /s
|
| Right now Europe needs time to build. The calculus has
| _radically_ changed. They need to build out in a fashion that
| is massive, but also both quick and quiet. This situation is
| too serious for rash action. Especially where victory is not
| guaranteed.
| pcj-github wrote:
| As an American, I'm disgusted.
|
| In my view the only way to solve this is through a complete and
| utter rejection of all things USA. People of Europe and the
| world, you can help by immediately stop buying American products,
| halt any travel plans you might have had here, have your
| goverments embargo us. Do everything in your power to crush our
| economy.
|
| We need something extreme to make these MAGA folk and the
| Republicans in power break out of this authoritarian fever dream
| they are in.
|
| I'd rather see this country get sick and vomit what needs to be
| expelled rather than have it die a slow death from this cancerous
| group-think that has overtaken half our population.
| beebaween wrote:
| We don't want WW3. I voted for Kamala and I still DO NOT WANT
| WW3.
| ben_w wrote:
| You can choose to not start it, you can't force others not to
| -- peace needs all parties, war only needs one.
| etwigg wrote:
| I am sincerely curious what Andreesen and Horowitz believe at the
| moment.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| This is their government. Vance is their puppet. This is what
| they wanted.
|
| Andreesen's little pseudo-manifesto a couple years back was
| fairly explicitly taking anti-liberal positions, and some that
| were outright anti-enlightenment.
|
| Not surprising really. We now see an alliance between the tech
| sector of the US economy and the oil and gas sector. Remember
| Putin is effectively oil baron/executive, not just the leader
| of a country.
| excalibur wrote:
| On the bright side, the more clearly Trump displays his gross
| incompetence, the more quickly he will be deposed.
| fullshark wrote:
| I think most Americans have already made up their mind on
| Donald Trump. Nothing will matter until individuals' personal
| financial situations are affected.
| fosh wrote:
| The Twitter responses to Leon's post are shocking. I wonder if
| it's mostly "folks left on Twitter" or "algorithm changes"
| jmull wrote:
| Good lord, what an embarrassment. Our president is a foolish and
| incompetent clown.
|
| Obviously those idiots in the White House are provoking this
| juvenile confrontation as part of a move toward withdrawing US
| support from Ukraine.
|
| But why? It's beyond clear that a resurgent Russia is against our
| interests, but here we have the President debasing himself and
| his country to suck up with Putin as if Putin was the leader of a
| superpower.
|
| So it must be a pretty bad reason. I guess we'll eventually find
| out why, but it may not matter at that point.
|
| How stupid and idiotic.
| scop wrote:
| Well, here come the downvotes, but for anybody who thinks that it
| is completely believable that Trump is a Russian stooge or is "on
| Russias side" let me offer this up:
|
| - We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and
| children. THAT IS THE GOAL.
|
| CONTEXT:
|
| - Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing
| _lethal_ aid which previous presidents did not do. He wanted to
| deter Putin _while not also escalating_.
|
| - Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How
| would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense
| agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding
| Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION.
|
| - Biden admin sent Kamala over to Europe in '21 saying it was
| time to add Ukraine to NATO. Good job guys.
|
| - Biden then said his response to a potential Putin invasion
| would "depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion" (I'm
| generalizing).
|
| - Biden then flopped Afghanistan. US weak.
|
| - There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris
| Johnson and European delegation shot it down.
|
| Europe and Ukraine are relying on the US to bankroll/supply a war
| with one of the world's greatest nuclear threat. THIS ISN'T A
| FUCKING VIDEO GAME. The lines have been more or less drawn. If we
| continue this war, we either:
|
| (a) at a minimum, drive Russia into closer alliance with China
| while killing many more Russians and Ukrainians
|
| (b) provoke a hot war amongst many nations, leading to the death
| of millions
|
| OR
|
| We get a peace deal done with the general boundaries that have
| been consistent for nearly two years: Russia provinces going to
| Russia, a DMZ established, and Ukraine sadly smaller.
|
| This isn't simply "we must support the Good Guys and defeat the
| Bad Guys". Right now Trump wants PEACE and feels as if Zelensky
| demands to call the shots. He can't call the shots. He is not the
| US.
|
| Addendum:
|
| Re mineral rights and the accusation "Trump just wants the $$$",
| you do realize that placing a large US business interest in
| Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of
| strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine,
| right?
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| no they don't get these things.. its just orange man bad
| brainwash
| kubb wrote:
| > We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and
| children. THAT IS THE GOAL.
|
| If that was the goal, why is Trump asking for Ukraine's natural
| resources? Maybe his goals are different than yours.
|
| ---
|
| Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, which is why Ukraine was seeking
| protection.
|
| From Ukraine's point of view, if they make peace now, and give
| up territory... Russia will do the same thing again in a couple
| of years. Many more people will die.
|
| Russia doesn't care about killing off its population, they have
| lots of poor and non-ethnic-Russian citizens, and they think
| nothing of having them die to get some more land.
| scop wrote:
| Read my whole reply. I literally addressed that at the end.
| Read the whole thing before you dismiss something.
| kubb wrote:
| > placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as
| opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of
| strengthening the US's commitment and investment in
| Ukraine, right?
|
| If the US is not willing to militarily defend it, it
| doesn't mean anything. Russia can just take the land, and
| cut a deal with the US to let them extract there for some
| time.
|
| A security guarantee or NATO membership would be an
| effective deterrent to further conflict, but Trump doesn't
| want it.
| throwacct wrote:
| This is the correct answer. Everyone here saying "We need to
| stand up to Putin..." won't be fighting on the frontlines and
| at worst, we can be entering WW3 if the US, Russia, and the EU
| keep escalating the conflict.
| surfpel wrote:
| Context for the crisis:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| Note the date on that video
| kubb wrote:
| About your analogy to China and Mexico... There are already 6
| NATO countries bordering Russia. It's really just about Putin
| being unhappy that they can't attack and annex where they
| please.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| We want peace! If your own country was invaded, would you be
| saying the same thing? Just roll over and let them have their
| way with you? I'm genuinely curious if you have the courage of
| what you say your convictions are.
| scop wrote:
| No, I would fight them tooth and nail. As would any member of
| an invaded country. Duh.
|
| But, if after several years a generation of my peers have
| been killed and I don't see a logic end to this war any time
| soon, well then I might start to re-evaluate.
|
| But you know what's _really dirty_?
|
| The pro-war people in the US are doing the opposite of what
| you say: gladly cheering on the slaughter of Ukrainians so
| long as it defeats the "boogeyman". Which side is more pro-
| Ukrainian? The side that results in more dead Ukrainians or
| less?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| So it sounds like you are saying it should be for Ukraine
| to decide whether to continue the war or not?
| pillefitz wrote:
| Dear Americans, please do something. Protest, write letters to
| congressmen etc. We Germans went through all of this 90 years
| ago..
| dimgl wrote:
| Can you explain how this mirrors what happened in Germany?
| linguistbreaker wrote:
| And how did you stop it?
| nicbou wrote:
| By giving Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany
| jimmydoe wrote:
| It's lost, at least till mid term.
| soared wrote:
| Does anyone know what an average citizen can do that will have
| an impact? I've called my reps office in DC before but I don't
| know if that does anything.
| gtsop wrote:
| Organise a political revolution. Nothing less than that will
| have an actual impact
| _ink_ wrote:
| Unionize and go on strike. Like nationwide.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Learn from France.
| scoofy wrote:
| What do you think we've been doing? I've spent literally two
| decades of my life advocating policies to try to prevent this
| from happening... the left is blind to their decadence and the
| right has gone insane.
| yolo3000 wrote:
| People complained that the Russians didn't protest more at the
| beginning of the war, and here you have the Americans, who
| won't be sent to Siberia or thrown out of a window, doing
| nothing.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| American liberals are so full of lifelong indoctrination into
| thinking that laws, courts, and constitutions are what hold
| up democracy ... they're just going in circles for the last
| 10 years expecting the next election or court decision to
| save them.
|
| They have no real concept of the mobilization of people
| power, street protest, disobedience because it's been
| stripped from the ideological palette of American liberalism.
|
| Those on the _left_ who do hold these concepts of opposition
| are deliberately marginalized by their two party system.
|
| Just like with Russians and the war, the world cannot expect
| domestic dissent within these countries to save them. It's up
| to the people of Europe & Canada to form alliances and do the
| best we can.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| American liberal propaganda is so powerful because liberals
| sincerely are incapable of seeing it because they take it
| as fact.
|
| What's odd is that, despite considering themselves "left",
| no one them seem to have gotten through enough Marx to
| understand the concept of "ideology" which is the basis for
| their distorted worldview.
|
| I always felt this 4chan Harry Potter copypasta perfectly
| captured contemporary American liberal ideology: https://pr
| eview.redd.it/qiqe74sl19141.jpg?auto=webp&s=07645c...
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| You're greying-out because you used the M word. I learned
| a long time ago to present the concepts, not the name,
| while on this forum.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| I always find it interesting that Americans will rant on
| about how oppressive China is because you can't talk
| about a particular event (Tiananmen Square massacre),
| while not batting an eye that mention one of the most
| prominent thinkers in Western history will get everything
| else you say absolutely invalidated.
|
| Again, a perfect examples... somebodies writings on
| ideology.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| You might find this interesting https://pod.link/15444876
| 24/episode/fca68c3a2a51c5cdeb29a546...
| nxm wrote:
| Except I want peace in Ukraine finally, and not billions of
| dollars wasted and more lives killed because Zelensky doesn't
| love a potential peace deal. Don't compare apples and
| oranges...loses credibility.
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| It's a ceasefire, not a peace deal. With a party who has no
| history of honoring ceasefires.
|
| Trump wants all of their mineral resources for a flimsy
| ceasefire. With no concessions from Russia.
|
| It's a bad deal. Would you fold because people would die when
| your sovereignty is threatened?
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| It will always be a bad deal for Ukraine. This has _never_
| been about Ukraine, it as been about who will control their
| resources Russia, NATO Europe or the US. For that last two
| years Europe and the US have assumed they were on the same
| team and Trump is simply decided in might make more sense
| for us to side with Russia.
|
| There was no future where the Ukraine was not exploited by
| fossil fuel companies and only propaganda separates which
| is the "good" side to control these and which is the "bad".
|
| I'm genuinely surprised by the mass naivete surrounding
| this war.
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| As far as the US and allies are concerned, this is very
| simply a war for the protection of Ukraine's sovereignty.
| Now that the US changed into a wannabe imperialistic
| nation, the picture is not so clear.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| > this is very simply a war for the protection of
| Ukraine's sovereignty
|
| This is objectively not true. The US government
| absolutely participated in over throwing the existing
| pro-Russian government around 2014. The US does not fight
| wars for "moral principles" like sovereignty, they do it
| so they can maintain control over fossil fuel resources.
|
| This war, like all wars, is a war of different wealthy
| individual and organization to control resources. All
| other views are propaganda generated to gather support
| for the loss of human life in the interest of oligarchs
| across the globe.
|
| > Now that the US changed into a wannabe imperialistic
| nation,
|
| I'm not sure I know anyone who has paid attention to
| global politics since WWII who would _not_ describe the
| US as an "imperialistic nation". If you earnestly
| believe this is some new turn in US history you have a
| lot of catching up to do on our involvement in
| overthrowing governments around the globe to maintain US
| friendly leadership in counteries that control key
| strategic resources.
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| Your comment deflects to reasons for the war. It does not
| address the core argument that it really wasn't a peace
| deal and that Russia commonly violates ceasefires. What
| good is a ceasefire when you know that Russia will
| violate it?
|
| Doesn't sound like a deal (good or bad) at all. It's a
| paper prop for Trump to wave around and exchange for a
| gold star from Putin.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| > Your comment deflects to reasons for the war.
|
| This war started in the early 2010s as fossil fuel
| reserves were discovered all over Ukraine and Russian and
| US policy makers both rushed to gain control over them.
|
| I'm surprised that people don't remember, but the US
| _did_ support far right Ukrainian groups that did have
| Nazi sympathies in 2014. I remember because I had
| Ukrainian friends that where terrified at the types of
| people the US government was enabling.
|
| There are no "good guys" in this conflict. It's two (well
| more than that) powerful groups of people with an
| interest in controlling fossil fuel resource in the
| regional. All other narrative around this are pure
| propaganda designed to get you to support the murder of
| Ukrainians in the interests of oligarchs around the
| world.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| If you are fine making other people live under putins
| thumb... Are you willing to put yourself in that position?
| brickfaced wrote:
| It is beyond insulting and condescending for the German people,
| who members of my family liberated from the yoke of tyranny, to
| compare our elected leader Donald Trump-- who ran on a platform
| of free speech, non-intervention, and reciprocal trade
| relations with Europe among other things-- to that bloodthirsty
| Austrian autocrat.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| Authoritarian governments don't collapse because of the "will
| of the people", that's a myth perpetuated by those in power to
| legitimize their positions. The major driver is the material
| conditions a society exists in.
|
| We are beginnign to experience the contraction of the global
| economy, and as material conditions worsen, expect everything
| else to follow suit. Democracy doesn't bring prosperity, it a
| consequence of prosperity.
|
| The comparisons of Trump to Hitler as also mind-numbingly
| facile. Other than a penchant for authoritarianism, they share
| little in common. But what they do share in common is they are
| both _emergent phenomena_ of their contemporary environments.
| fullshark wrote:
| "This is gonna be great television I will say that." - Donald
| Trump's last words as the confrontation ended. Just insanity.
| guax wrote:
| His disconnection with reality is expected. I would be
| surprised if he understood or had any empathy to realities he
| doesn't conceive. The real change was in the GOP allowing and
| buying in on all of these.
| fullshark wrote:
| They told themselves they could contain him, they thought he
| was like them, cultivating an insincere public persona to
| accumulate power. He had the juice and the ability to perform
| jedi magic over their constituents. They rationalized the
| indefensible to win elections.
|
| None of them care about anything except power and leveraging
| it. Politics ain't bean bag and all of that. It's revealing
| to anyone actually paying a modicum of attention that isn't
| blinded by partisan hate.
| doesnotexist wrote:
| It's like the inverse of Gil Scott Heron's "The revolution will
| not be televised"
|
| "The Nuclear Holocaust Will Be Televised"
|
| There's even a trailer from the Reagan era:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBtu0gr6JqM
|
| But it seems the format is going to be in the style of reality
| TV shows from 10-20 years ago.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| There's even the CNN tape for the occasion.
| miramba wrote:
| How the mighty have fallen. The 20th century was the american
| century, the 21st doesn't look like it lately. This is an empire
| in decline.
| namuol wrote:
| There's no question in my mind that this went exactly as planned.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| I'm not sure most Americans will fully appreciate the gravity of
| this. _We don 't trust you anymore._ We don't trust American
| self-control. You are becoming an enemy.
|
| It genuinely feels like I'm looking at the precursor to a Nazi
| party.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| As an American I can't blame you. It looks like that from
| inside as well and it's terrifying because we feel completely
| powerless - unless we can muster tens of millions to march in
| the streets in a country the size of ours it won't have any
| impact. And most people here are still completely apathetic.
| gre wrote:
| Best we can manage is an Feb 28 Economic Blackout Day. (Don't
| forget to stock up the day before!)
|
| You didn't know about it? Or you did, and you didn't buy from
| amazon for a single day? Democracy is saved!
| deadbabe wrote:
| I don't know what to believe much these days. So instead, I look
| to see at what actions are being taken instead of endlessly
| reading news and forums for consensus.
|
| And what I see is Europe doesn't seem to care much if Ukraine
| falls. The United States, has been supporting Ukraine far more up
| to this point, and they are not the ones facing the prospect of
| having Russia in their backyard breathing down their back. So if
| Europe doesn't give a fuck, maybe it really means the fall of
| Ukraine ultimately doesn't mean much to anyone except the
| Ukrainian people. The world will move on. This helps keep me calm
| and prevents me from stressing over most world affairs.
|
| And another thing I wonder is what exactly _is_ so bad about
| Russia anyways? Their leader sucks, but so does ours, and don't
| people of both nations just want a good life at the end of the
| day? How different are they really from us? When I see TikTok
| interviews of everyday Russians in the streets, they are just
| like us, similar beliefs about their own country and what is
| wrong with the world. I understand less and less the source of
| our conflict.
| lawn wrote:
| Maybe if you had instead done some research you'd see that
| Europe has provided more military aid than the United States.
|
| Also, relying on "TikTok interviews" ridiculously naive. You
| could just as well watch Russia Today and get the same amount
| of propaganda shoved down your throat.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| if europe has provided more military aid than why do they
| need united states for this conflict? cant EU and ukraine
| just resolve this? why did Zelenskyy come to make a deal for
| the resources?
| lawn wrote:
| Because 1.2 + 1.1 means much greater rate of success and
| less deaths? If you would care about your country, why
| wouldn't you want as much support as you could get, even if
| you would have the upper hand?
|
| Zelensky wanted security guarantees to further help to
| defend his country from murder and death.
|
| Why is that so strange to you?
| pilooch wrote:
| Because you don't overrun a nuclear state with weapons, but
| with influence and the true promise of scaling up.
| linuxftw wrote:
| What influence? The US and EU isn't going to engage with
| Russia directly in battle. There's no influence to be
| peddled. Unless the EU and US have something Russian
| wants, no influence can be peddled.
|
| The truth is, Europeans know that if Ukraine falls
| nothing will happen to Europeans. There is no existential
| threat. There has been no national mobilization of
| industry to support Ukraine's war efforts.
|
| The entire western world over the last 3 years has left
| Ukraine with a 10-1 artillery disadvantage. It's just not
| a serious concern for people.
| gatinsama wrote:
| > Their leader sucks, but so does ours
|
| But people voted for one and not the other.
| HellDunkel wrote:
| Let me help you out: one country invading the other, destroying
| homes and lives. But that should not concern you much as
| apparently it is not you who is under attack.
| deadbabe wrote:
| When Israel invaded Gaza we let them
| johnisgood wrote:
| Because Biden supports Israel, same story with Ukraine.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Wow what on earth did I just read xD
| guax wrote:
| Am in Europe (NL), people do care. I have Ukranian refugees
| living in my town, I helped them with computers and bicycles
| and what I could to help some kids be able to do their school
| works.
|
| Europe has given more than the US to Ukraine. https://www.ifw-
| kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...
|
| US number would've been smaller if Biden did not push a large
| package before leaving. I think EU should do more.
|
| What is so bad about Russia to the US? Well, you can ask every
| American administration of the past 30 years, they all seemed
| to agree before. For some Russian doctrine introduction:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
| deadbabe wrote:
| Ok but in Russia do they say similar things about the US? And
| if so then is there some backlash from Russians who believe
| Putin shouldn't be dealing with the US as a potential ally?
| kubb wrote:
| Russian propaganda just paints Trump and the Republicans as
| morons who are easily played by Putin. Of course USA is
| still the enemy, and evil.
| guax wrote:
| I would not be able to say. I work with Russians but they
| avoid any political discussion. The few who do say
| something are more aligned with western views.
|
| The little I seen from news I take are part of a bubble but
| show the US being ridiculed by tv hosts and the such. The
| US is/was the face of NATO for Russia for a long time, that
| narrative can shift very fast tho.
| cr1895 wrote:
| https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/18/which-co...
| JanSt wrote:
| China can be pretty sure that the US will not act if they attack
| Taiwan. Trump and Vance are weak. All talk, no walk.
| ncr100 wrote:
| MORE: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43209538
|
| This is what I'm thinking.
|
| Now would be a great time for China to start an invasion. It
| would be a crime. China today, that government is not above
| committing international crimes.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > Now would be a great time for China to start an invasion
|
| I'm not doubting _at all_ that China has imperialistic
| designs on Taiwan and the South China Sea. But why would
| China invade, when its leaders can _clearly_ see that Russia,
| through strategic patience, bribery, and aggressive hybrid
| warfare, has finally won the Cold War without ever having to
| invade the US militarily?
|
| Bribery is rampant among high-ranking military officers in
| Taiwan, for example. Many of them have been exposed to have
| sold classified information to the Chinese government for
| trifling amounts of money. China has also managed to poach a
| lot of former TSMC engineers to work at SMIC by offering
| generous salaries. Why take military action against Taiwan
| today (or in 2027, according to the CIA [1]) when China just
| has to be very patient?
|
| [1] And do we really trust the CIA, given how many times it
| has lied throughout its entire existence to justify
| starting/escalating wars?
| nxm wrote:
| Perhaps Europe can defend it?
| dluan wrote:
| China is smart enough to know that US diplomacy lasts longer
| than a 4 year term. They've been operating off the 1992
| Consensus, and had a longstanding agreement with the US re: One
| China Policy that was upended by Obama, and then Biden. Trump's
| chaotic swings are a blip.
|
| China is also smart enough to have been watching the
| "decoupling" pushed by the Obama-era CIA starting in the late
| 2010s, and then the Russian invasion, so an actual Taiwanese
| land invasion won't happen until China is fully decoupled, and
| even then there is the much bigger international fallout. China
| won't throw away its position as world factory. Within China
| there are too many people in the party who don't see a land
| invasion as feasible.
|
| All of the recent sabrerattling by the US and pushing Taiwan
| for a declaration of independence is what would trigger an
| invasion. To think that opportunistically exploiting a senile
| president's term to act on this conflict grossly misunderstands
| the entire Taiwan/China situation. And it says more about you
| and how Americans view global diplomacy.
| drgo wrote:
| It is quite clear that Trump does not have the temperament to be
| a president or a leader of any kind. Clearly, he was venting and
| has not calculated the consequences of his words to US (and his
| own) interests. Also clear is the glaring absence of any
| counterbalancing influences from his cabinet and staff. It is so
| easy now for this government to make a huge mistake that can
| cause irreversible damage to the US and the world.
| Nition wrote:
| I normally avoid commenting on politics entirely but I feel
| compelled to comment here. I'm sure anyone who's ever been
| bullied in their life will feel exactly what's happening in that
| video clip. Two big kids, confident in their position and backing
| each other up, gang up on the outsider. Did they ever really want
| to make a deal at all? Absolutely infuriating and saddening to
| watch.
| surfpel wrote:
| They're world leaders not children on a playground.
| wrs wrote:
| They don't seem to realize that.
| gambiting wrote:
| Zelenskyy is an absolute hero. I couldn't be prouder of him in
| this very moment, to actually speak his mind and demand that the
| man who claims to be the leader of the free world admits one
| simple thing - that Putin is a killer. If he can't even do that
| then it's clear no productive discussion can take place.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Full video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj8rRe-p0&ab_channel=PBSNe...
| GMoromisato wrote:
| I would like to know what the alternatives are. None that I can
| think of are palatable:
|
| 1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much
| more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and
| escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what
| Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this
| just buying time for someone to depose Putin?
|
| 2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe
| minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This
| might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively
| makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the
| downsides are all too obvious.
|
| 3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the
| agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice?
| If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds
| like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2
| right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let
| Russia rearm.
|
| 4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China.
| [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
|
| Did I miss anything?
|
| The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and
| the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US
| nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In
| that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from
| getting what he wants.
|
| My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it
| acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US
| troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the
| US public will support that.
|
| But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.
| guax wrote:
| The goal was always to support Ukraine for long enough to
| pressure Russia into the negotiation table, the concessions
| could varied, no one knows. Ukraine knows it cannot get it all,
| but they know they won't settle for nothing either.
|
| We know this given how close even Trump got to having
| discussions with both parties. His competence was not there to
| finish any deal and took the worse turn possible.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| But if you can't stop Russia from getting some of Ukraine,
| how do you stop it from getting all of Ukraine? That to me is
| the key problem.
|
| Russia knows that time is on its side. It can just pause
| enough to rearm and then attack again. What will we do
| differently then?
| hagbarth wrote:
| What makes you think it will go any differently than the
| first time? A pause will allow Ukraine to either rearm
| again as well or recapture territory.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Because Ukrainian soldiers are not unlimited, and
| Russia's population is about 3 times larger.
|
| Plus, at some point Russia will start using nukes and
| then we will be forced to back down. We are not going to
| blow up the world to save Ukraine.
| guax wrote:
| I think Russia would be much more weary to attack a re-
| armed, well supported and "rested" Ukraine that would be
| bolstered by defeating goliath, even if at great loss,
| remember that everyone thought they would capitulate within
| two weeks.
|
| In this war the only winners are US/EU weapons
| manufacturers, there is no winning scenario. Something
| Trump cannot understand and Putin cannot accept.
| namuol wrote:
| I'm struggling to see how option 1 is somehow worse than option
| 4...
| GMoromisato wrote:
| More Ukrainian + Russians dead/wounded and more money spent
| on weapons, and you end up in one of the other options
| anyway.
| namuol wrote:
| The only inevitability listed is that Putin can't live
| forever. There's legitimate hope if Russia has a leadership
| change.
| kajecounterhack wrote:
| > Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory
| (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons
| alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine,
| which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would
| support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
|
| It _is_ possible with the combo of weapons and economic
| sanctions. Ukraine (had) more economic support, so it is both a
| war of blood and endurance, endurance which Ukraine could have
| by being a porcupine with next-gen weapons and non-stop
| bleeding for Russia until things start hitting the oligarch's
| pocketbooks too far and the people of Russia begin to demand
| regime change.
|
| Russia is a glorified gas station. You can hurt it dramatically
| with economic sanctions because its whole GDP is concentrated
| into one sector.
|
| Imo if Trump really cared about America's long term security,
| he would be trying to fund research into cheaper / easier to
| produce next-gen weapons for Ukraine to test for us, instead of
| complaining how much our HIMARS and tanks currently cost,
| firing top military brass, cozying up to a dictator, and trying
| to exploit a ravaged democratic ally.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Maybe. But Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either
| because they feared Russian reaction. Now, with so many
| Ukrainian soldiers dead, it will be much harder.
|
| Economic sanctions won't affect Russia as long as China is
| behind them. And if the West is against Russia, they will do
| anything to keep China as an ally.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > 4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China.
| [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
|
| It would have been in the US best interest to have done this
| twenty years ago, but some greedy bastards thought there would
| be untold riches in breaking up Russia, to have "two, three,
| many Ukraines". They failed.
| hagbarth wrote:
| 1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and
| preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in
| the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| I get that. As I said, maybe eventually Putin gets deposed.
|
| But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine,
| and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with
| nukes).
|
| Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to
| save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and
| we will have to back down.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| In my opinion, Ukraine should be supported as long as they are
| willing and able to fight, allowing whatever strategies and
| tactics they consider necessary.
|
| That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political
| duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future
| territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign
| country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.
| oezi wrote:
| I think you need better wording for Option 1: Support Ukraine
| sufficiently so it can make its own decision if they want to
| continue fighting.
|
| For Option 2 I actually don't see a lot of downsides except
| dead European soldiers replacing dead Ukrainian soldiers.
| Russia would absolutely stop if being stopped in their tracks
| more ferociously. In fact, Russia is already fighting this war
| all out. If they could they would do more (or at least I can't
| phantom why they would not).
| losvedir wrote:
| I think the "mineral rights" deal might play into this. In the
| full interview[0], Trump mentions it right off the bat, and
| talks about how it "means we're going to be inside".
|
| I think it goes in tandem with your number (3). Like you say,
| why would Russia not violate the agreement? I think maybe the
| move is "well now we have citizens in there working so don't
| blow us up". It's one thing for Russia to attack the Ukraine,
| but another if they have collateral damage that takes out
| Americans.
|
| I don't even know how valuable the actual underlying resources
| are, so much as a bit of "kayfabe" between the Ukraine, US, and
| Russia, that things are different.
|
| Anyway, that's my hope.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um19Mf4dYes
| nahuel0x wrote:
| There are two opposing strategies for the US:
|
| - Be aggressive against China allies to weaken them before
| attacking China (Biden)
|
| - Try to be friendlier to China allies so they become US allies
| or at least neutral (Trump)
|
| We are seeing oscillations between those two strategies, because
| both US factions are playing his cards according to what both see
| at the end of the tunnel: A new World War with US and China as
| the main actors, the most probable outcome of imperialism and
| capitalism crisis. The Trade war is his first act.
| rsyring wrote:
| I've wholeheartedly disagreed with a lot that past
| administrations, especially liberal administrations, said and
| did. But I don't recall ever being so absolutely disgusted by
| them as I am today.
|
| We are currently watching the downfall of the current world order
| and the US as a bastion of democracy. And I'm not exaggerating.
| Trump is aligning himself with Russian interests. He even had a
| Russian state media representative at that meeting. Rome had to
| fall, I'm sorry I'm living to see it.
|
| Trump, you'll never read this, but I need to say it
| anyway...there aren't words to describe how despicable you are.
| Tyrant wannabee and greedy coward. You are selling the American
| soul to cozy up to a murder and rapist. Those who voted for you
| have no excuse. You were always clear about the kind of man you
| are.
| ToDougie wrote:
| Probably told him that since he and his government cannot account
| for tens of billions of dollars that the US gave them, and that
| we have evidence that Ukraine is selling arms to Mexican cartels
| (designated terrorist organizations), that we would no longer
| tolerate our relationship, as is.
|
| Somehow all of the whiny commenters on here forget that DJT's
| first administration provided considerable CIA/Tier1 training and
| resources to the Ukrainian military. Then Russia invaded while
| Biden was president. They didn't invade on Trump's watch. They
| invaded while Biden was running(?) our country. Now, yet again,
| Trump has to go clean up the mess -- just like he did after Obama
| gave Putin the flexibility to invade Ukraine after his win in the
| 2012 election.
| yakkomajuri wrote:
| Usually we keep the mainstream news out of here but felt I had to
| post this one because I've never seen anything like it and was
| curious to hear other people's perspective here.
|
| To me it feels like a setup to look good in front of their
| audience without any proper desire to engage in true diplomacy.
| neom wrote:
| Some of the stuff I've had to deal with building business to
| $100MM++++++ revenue give me stress and anxiety. I've been
| through so much shit at this point I think it's hard to stress
| me out. Watching that interaction between the 3 of them invoked
| a feeling I've not felt in a very long time, it was incredibly
| stressful. That was neither politics nor business, personally
| I'd have accepted either, but that was not those.
| lolinder wrote:
| I can understand, but honestly it was a mistake. I just
| scrolled down to get here, and there are no curious
| perspectives being shared or interesting questions being asked,
| just the entirely understandable and expected mass anger and
| frustration.
|
| In an ideal world we could have a threat or two like this that
| would serve as outlets, but what I've actually seen is that
| having these discussions leads to them bleeding out into other
| threads that should have been unrelated. HN is going to need to
| more aggressively enforce its rules about political news if
| it's going to stay a haven for curiosity and not descend into
| just another place for angry politics.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And this is a pivotal
| moment in US history, the moment where the world realizes the
| emperor has no clothes.
| danbruc wrote:
| Most here will not like that opinion, but I think this is
| essentially a good thing, it will eventually end this war - at
| huge costs for Ukraine. The fault of the USA is not that they now
| pressure Ukraine towards ending this war, the fault of the USA
| was that they did not accept Russia's demand - or at least tried
| to find an acceptable compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO
| which caused this tragedy.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Assuming you're writing in good faith: Russia has already
| signed a treaty confirming Ukraine's sovereignty and its
| borders. Then ignored it and attacked - twice. First time it
| also pretended it wasn't them, until they turned around and
| said, "haha, actually it was".
|
| Russia does not hold up bargains, so there is no positive
| utility in giving them things.
| danbruc wrote:
| That is a very weak argument, in my opinion. What if Ukraine
| attacked Russia, would you still expected Russia not to step
| into Ukraine while fighting back? Countries pull out of and
| break treaties all the time when the circumstances change.
| After all, all laws and rights and agreements and treaties
| are just ink on paper and they are worth nothing without the
| will and power to enforce them.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Circumstances didn't change though. Ukrainian borders were
| guaranteed by Russia and US (and some European countries
| too I think) unconditionally. Ukraine didn't attack Russia,
| quite the opposite. And as per my first post, in the first
| attack Russia didn't even pretend they had a cause - they
| pretended it wasn't them.
|
| > treaties [...] are worth nothing without the will and
| power to enforce them
|
| Well, precisely. Russia has demonstrated time and again
| that they don't honor agreements. Any agreement where you
| give Russia something today in exchange for something
| tomorrow just doesn't work.
| danbruc wrote:
| Circumstances did not change? I am not too familiar with
| those treaties but I assume you are referring to the
| treaties in the context of Ukraine surrendering Soviet
| nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War, correct? At
| that time the Soviets almost certainly did not consider
| the possibility of their neighbor becoming a NATO member
| and potentially ending up with US troops and weapons at
| their border. Circumstances most certainly changed since
| then.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| That's the treaty. It was unconditional and unlimited in
| time, and Ukraine gave up something real for that
| security. Even if the rest of your argument holds, the
| lesson is there: don't give up things for promises from
| Russia. Today Ukraine would certainly rather have the
| nukes than a piece of paper.
|
| As for the rest of it... As said, Ukraine wasn't really
| on track for NATO membership. But even if it was, this is
| all hyperbolic speech from Russia. For one, they
| themselves have no issue having lots of weaponry right on
| the border, in Kaliningrad and Belarus. For two, they
| made so much noise about Ukraine, well, basically not
| being ruled out of NATO, but when Finland, with a much
| longer border and more money actually _joined_ NATO, they
| whimpered some half hearted threats and were done with
| it. Didn 't seem to care much one way or the other.
| alxlaz wrote:
| If we're talking about the Budapest Memorandum,
| cirumstances possibly changing are actually part of the
| treaty. The memorandum conditions the use of force
| against Ukraine, and makes provisions for what would
| happen if a party to the treaty or one of its allies
| attacks another party to the treaty (second and fifth
| point, one is about conventional response, the other
| about nuclear response):
|
| > [The parties shall] refrain from the threat or use of
| force against the territorial integrity or political
| independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and
| undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used
| against these countries, except in cases of self-defense
| or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United
| Nations.
|
| If memory serves right, Ukraine didn't invade Russia, and
| Russia is not under a UN mandate.
| kubb wrote:
| Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
| danbruc wrote:
| Who said they are? The official position of NATO was that
| Ukraine will eventually join NATO while Russia demanded that
| Ukraine will not join NATO. Contrary to the western
| mainstream opinion, I think that is why Putin started this
| war, to prevent Ukraine joining NATO, not to grab some land.
| kubb wrote:
| You said it:
|
| > the fault of the USA was that they did not accept
| Russia's demand - or at least tried to find an acceptable
| compromise - for Ukraine not to join NATO which caused this
| tragedy
|
| The US basically accepted that demand, and Russia still
| attacked Ukraine. They wanted the land no matter what.
| danbruc wrote:
| What do you mean with basically accepted that demand?
| Give me a source and I will stand corrected. I have
| stayed away from discussing this war for a long time
| since the outcome is pretty predictable given my point of
| view, so I forgot a lot of the details from when I
| carefully researched the topic. But as far as I remember,
| there was not hint of willingness to accommodate Russian
| demands.
| kubb wrote:
| The demand is met by Ukraine not being in NATO. You can
| see the list of NATO members here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
|
| If Ukraine joined NATO - that would be disregarding
| Russian demands.
|
| Russia just didn't want Ukraine to join because they
| wanted to annex the eastern part of it. Having it in NATO
| would mean that they couldn't do that.
|
| Of course they're opposed to Ukraine joining even after
| that annexation - they'll take more land if they can get
| it. They don't care about human lives, will regroup,
| recover, and attack again.
| danbruc wrote:
| With all due respect, that is a really stupid argument.
| The official NATO position was that Ukraine will
| eventually become a NATO member, Bucharest summit 2008.
| That position remained unchanged, at least until the
| beginning of the Russian invasion. The Russian demand was
| and probably is, that Ukraine will not become a NATO
| member in the future, not that it is not a NATO member
| right now. To the best of my knowledge, NATO has never
| stated that it will not bar Ukraine from joining NATO
| indefinitely or something even remotely similar.
|
| And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I
| think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at
| their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy
| Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not
| like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022
| threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km
| from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a
| military base.
| kubb wrote:
| There are already 6 NATO countries on the border with
| Russia, I'm shocked that you don't know this.
|
| If Ukraine became a member before 2014, we wouldn't have
| had this horrible war, but Russia was controlling
| Ukraine's political class, and making threats to NATO
| countries against them joining. Especially against
| Germany who was reliant on Russian gas imports.
|
| I can see that you're determined to believe that Russia
| is just defending itself here by attacking preemptively,
| and you will probably support any action by them,
| including a full annexation, and attribute it to their
| reasonable intentions.
|
| No need to pretend that you have respect for me... But in
| reality what's happening is that you're dismissing
| information that doesn't fit in your worldview, by
| disparaging the person who presents them to you.
| fullshark wrote:
| And how is "ending the war" certain after a cease fire and not
| just a temporary pause in Putin's quest to eliminiate
| Ukraine/opposition and annex/install a puppet ruler there?
| danbruc wrote:
| Nothing is certain. I say this because I think that the
| mainstream point of view - that Putin is an expansionist and
| will conquer whatever he can - is wrong. If I am wrong with
| that and the mainstream opinion is correct, than it is of
| course a potentially [1] bad idea to end the war.
|
| [1] I say potentially because even in the case that Russia
| will attack again, it is not obvious that ending the war for
| now is bad for Ukraine. Maybe they could grow their military
| potential quicker than Russia and be in a relatively better
| position in the future.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| How do you square your beliefs with the fact that Russia
| took Crimea, decided that wasn't enough, and went back for
| more?
| echelon wrote:
| Ukraine wants security guarantees. A ceasefire without security
| guarantees is an opportunity for Russia to resupply and attack
| again.
| danbruc wrote:
| They will not get any. Let us be real, nobody really cares
| about Ukraine. If a country truly cared, they would have sent
| their own troops towards Ukraine on day one of the invasion.
| Nobody will agree to potentially fight in a war against a
| nuclear [super] power to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.
| angryreader wrote:
| looks like many of these armchair strategists here have not
| the slightest idea of the atrocities of war.
|
| why don't they take a gun and join the massacre?
|
| ap reuters (here bbc to whom they sell, or wp, or nyt etc.)
| try to dominate the thinking of 4 billion people.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| People complaining about politics on HN: Nobody is asking you to
| read or post here. Make your own HN where politics are strictly
| forbidden. Good luck.
| omayomay wrote:
| this meeting will be remembered in ages to be come.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You're making the assumption that even more outrageous things
| aren't coming down the pipeline. I think that's unwarranted.
| They will continue to escalate.
| nrawe wrote:
| So, watching the video as a brit with a number if Ukrainian
| friends and colleagues, my first reaction is that this is the
| Trump Whitehouse looking for a cheap win.
|
| However, I think their calculation here speaks to the difficulty
| of the current situation.
|
| Putting aside the morality, sovereign integrity, and such: the
| situation appears to be entering/in a stalemate. The Ukrainian
| forces have done well to proactively take and hold Russian
| territory, and have held the line pretty well. However, there
| does not seem to be a play here that will conclusively end
| Russian occupation presently. The best case seems to be waiting
| out the supply of Russian troops, but the Ukrainian army doesn't
| have an endless supply of volunteers in this regard (I've worked
| with a few who have).
|
| So the question has to be asked: how does this end decisively if
| neither side can win outright? And how much support is required
| to maintain the status quo?
|
| I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose
| territory. I think they could argue for greater security
| architecture (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat.
| But otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is
| where its at.
|
| Its a sorry situation all around.
| liuliu wrote:
| > I think they could argue for greater security architecture
| (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat. But
| otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is
| where its at.
|
| The current administration is redundantly clear that it won't
| allow Ukraine to join NATO to avoid antagonize Russia.
| nrawe wrote:
| Yeah, I think they'll fold on that point, too, but the main
| stumbling block for Ukraine is that Russian guarantees mean
| little in a post-2021 invasion context given they made the
| same overtures after 2014.
|
| The idea of the entire country becoming a DMZ just smacks of
| Putin lining up the next play and a Russian-leaning leader
| put in Zelenskis place.
| oezi wrote:
| Why do they empower a war lord such as Putin? In what
| universe should the US care about if they offend Russia? Will
| they put Iran over Israel next?
| liuliu wrote:
| Maybe they don't view him as a warlord but ideologically
| aligned friend.
|
| Israel is a conservative Jewish state which is more
| ideologically aligned with current administration than a
| Islamic state.
| cloverich wrote:
| Many characterize Putin's current position as taking as much
| territory as possible, while staying in the game long enough
| for US political climate to change. So I'd posit back, how
| would Putin's posture change if the US right was as aligned as
| the left on supporting Ukraine as long as it took? I suspect he
| would have taken a deal long ago.
|
| Trump wants it to look as though he is the one making the deal
| happen, but the reality is he's the only reason it has not
| happened already. IMHO.
| nrawe wrote:
| I agree with your point about Putin waiting for the WH
| administration to change. Were the president hawkish on
| Russia, however, I still doubt Putin would back down.
|
| Putin needs to be seen to win at home to play to his core
| base. Biden wouldn't let him, Trump will, but to Putin that
| means:
|
| 1. Control of annexed territory. 2. No Ukrainian nukes. 3. No
| NATO/EU membership for Ukraine. 4. Zelenski removed and
| puppet/anti-democratic leader installed.
|
| What we're hearing post-meeting is Trump laying the
| groundwork for point 4 and taking a firm position on 1.
| p2detar wrote:
| [delayed]
| Humorist2290 wrote:
| If you're an American and want to vent your frustrations, you
| could try the US Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121 .
|
| You can contact your senator and ask how they are contributing to
| the safety and prosperity of Americans, or just human beings in
| general.
| gs17 wrote:
| My senators are both strongly in support of this. Bill
| Hagerty's website's top news story is from yesterday, but it
| pretty much restates everything Trump said today. And I'm sure
| I don't need to explain Marsha Blackburn's opinion. Republicans
| gerrymandered the state, so the Representative in the House is
| about the same. Unless I suddenly win the lottery, I don't
| think they're interested in hearing my opinion.
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| Trump with his bluffs and attacks operates within crumple zone of
| US and even of the western world but this crumple zone slowly
| starts giving up. Inside his head he thinks he is genius with
| ideas like taking over Greenland, depopulating Gaza, capturing
| Ukrainian resources or that Putin treats him seriously. Fact is
| EU has been asleep at the wheel for the last decade doing even
| counter productive moves like Brexit and Nord Stream, or
| ridiculous things like attaching bottle caps to the bottle, while
| corruption in Ukraine has been continuously enormous to the point
| they run out of money and people. Honestly, it all looks rather
| bleak and elites of many EU countries are ready to eject to Dubai
| (as Russian and Ukrainian ones have already done).
| AlexatParis wrote:
| I am born in Ukraine and live now in Europe. As European I may
| understand your disappointment with the West letting down some
| "rules based" order and democratic values. Yet as Ukrainian, I
| know unfortunately that the premises of the "rules based world"
| do not apply to many regions in the world, inclusive Ukraine. Let
| me explain, a rule-based order means that the monopoly of
| violence is the privilege of the state: if a bad guy annoys, you
| get them arrested by the police and sued by the justice. In
| international relations, the cop was the US. But if you live in a
| region where US cannot or just doesn't want to play the cop (for
| the seek of is interests : think to Saudi Arabia..) then you
| finish up in a 'violent world' where the order comes from the
| violence and power. If you accept that such regions exist, you
| become a realist (see mersheimer) And if you are realist, you do
| not understand why Zelensky has sacrificed 1million people while
| another strategy would have been more suited: accept the
| neutrality, play the economic development, play the cultural
| development (remeber that economy and culture are the weak parts
| of Putin's policy) and gain margins of independence step by step.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| Zelensky is just one person, rest of the Ukraine govt will play
| realists
| empiricus wrote:
| What do you think Putin will do in year after a peace? What do
| you think Putin will do after taking over Ukraine? This is also
| a form of realism, to think what will happen in the future.
| AlexatParis wrote:
| yet how do you defeat him right now ? if western stocks are
| completely depleted, and in the battlefield Ukraine (with all
| help of western countries) has 1 to 5 or 10 ratio of
| ballistic to Ukraine / China. Acknowledging this basic fact
| hurts to the ego but may save millions of lifes.
| Acknowledging this fact makes you think to your sole
| remaining strategy: separate Putin from Xi and gain time to
| enhance your military industry. Acknowledging this fact does
| not make you pro-Putin as you still prefer a democratic
| world. Of course, you will not be very successful in
| meetings. You can afford such non sense when you have no skin
| in the game. But if the lifes of your cousin is at stake, you
| think in a real world with real terms, what to do to spare
| your population !
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| mersheimer, who premisses his theory on 'Putin never lies'.
| Such reality.
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| Mersheimer is mostly wrong. I urge you to seek alternate
| sources.
| AlexatParis wrote:
| Mersheimer is not my source nor my reference. my source are
| the messages I receive from cousins on the battlefield.
| VeejayRampay wrote:
| absolute display of debased cowardice
|
| if you're american and you're able to watch the video without
| feeling either ashamed or revolted, know that absolutely no one
| in the world respects the cloth you're cut from, except for the
| the worst dictators and their lackeys
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Dear god we need to stop producing Foundation-style and other
| imperialist sci-fi TV. Clearly Trump and his crew are way too
| convinced they're emperors. Next up I guess: cruel and unusual
| punishments for political enemies. :|
| gtsop wrote:
| The funniest thing about all this is the absurd joke that Trump
| is compromised by Russia. A clearly populist and baseless
| propaganda to wash off the cold self-interested policies that
| America always (obviously) shoved down the throats of it's allies
| and enemies.
|
| The inability to see how this policy benefits usa (by giving an
| end to a dead-end spend to a lost war, claim some losses, attempt
| to not go head to head with russia since china is the biggest
| fish to deal with right now) is trully laughable.
|
| I know the downvotes are going to come raining, i don't care.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Realpolitik is not a skill common among engineers. I won't
| begrudge anyone their outrage.
| surfpel wrote:
| I'm dissapointed by how unscientific this community is
| regarding the truth on this conflict. I would expect
| technical people to have a knack for seeing past propaganda.
| jimbohn wrote:
| This was the investment of the century for the USA. Send old
| garbage and help with intelligence to weaken a historical
| enemy, revive NATO, and acquire knowledge on the frontier of
| warfare. The joke is on the USA, sadly.
| whalesalad wrote:
| That meeting is one of the most infurating things I have ever
| witnessed. We are 100% cooked.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| I've never felt this embarrassed to be an American in recent
| years. To all our foreign friends in computing, the majority of
| people in the US are not caricatures of POTUS and his sock puppet
| sidekick.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| Should have felt embarrassed about Nuland and Blinken. This is
| the fall-out.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's actually possible to be embarassed for both.
| brickfaced wrote:
| You don't speak for all or even most Americans. A majority of
| US voters selected Donald Trump as their President. I'm pleased
| with the President's pushback on the disrespectful, high-
| pressure bargaining tactics Zelensky tried to use today in
| front of the press at the White House.
| jlev1 wrote:
| Shame on you.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 49% is a plurality, not a majority.
| brickfaced wrote:
| You're right, he won 49.7% of the popular vote compared to
| Kamala Harris' 48.4%. Many states like Arizona and
| California took weeks to finish counting and I had not
| checked the final numbers.
|
| If you're curious how most Americans feel now, you can read
| about Trump's approval ratings here; currently his poll
| results are net-favorable:
|
| https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-
| t...
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| Takes a while for buyer's remorse to fully set in.
| davidczech wrote:
| Yes, it hasn't been long enough for any real effects to
| start being felt, even though it's felt like an eternity.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| He won by plurality, not majority.
| acdha wrote:
| Under half of voters selected him - roughly a quarter of the
| population - and many of them claim to have done so on the
| basis of the policy positions he made during the campaign
| which have been reversed (Canada, Gaza, Ukraine, Project
| 2025, etc.).
| lurking_swe wrote:
| well then i'm even more ashamed of my country lol. high
| pressure?
|
| JD vance calling the guest out for being disrespectful in
| front of the media. Trump not letting the guest talk at all.
| did we watch the same video? Hilarious take.
| Trasmatta wrote:
| Do you not see the incredible irony accusing Zelenskyy of
| "disrespectful, high-pressure bargaining tactics"??
|
| His country has been under attack by an authoritarian
| government for YEARS, and the problem is that he's not
| "respectful enough" for you? What happened to "facts don't
| care about your feelings"?
| nullstyle wrote:
| WTF are you talking about? "I'm talking about the kind of
| diplomacy that will end the destruction in your country" was
| what our VP said to kick off the spat.
|
| "high-pressure bargaining tactics," get the fuck out of here.
| Zelensky didn't kiss the ring and our representatives acted
| like little baby bitches when he corrected them gently on the
| actual history of diplomacy in that region since 2014.
|
| You are pissing on anyone who has ever made a sacrifice to
| the USA if you think this extortive BS is appropriate
| American diplomacy, and you should be ashamed. You need to do
| better.
| chgs wrote:
| But about half of America did vote for this, and Trump isn't
| doing what he said he'd do and what the world said he'd do.
| wrs wrote:
| Half of American _voters_ voted for this, which is far less
| than half of Americans. I'm almost as disappointed in the
| people who didn't vote as I am in the people who voted for
| this.
| damion6 wrote:
| Just a bad seed Trump is
| at0mic22 wrote:
| Can we get downvoted comments look regularly and not faded
| completely out? Silencing people cause their opinion is not
| popular seems very redditish
| nxm wrote:
| It should be noted that Biden lost temper with Zelenskyy in late
| 2022 after pledging more, Zelenskyy started to complain about to
| getting even more
| sirolimus wrote:
| Trump, Musk and Vance are a disgrace. I hope democrats turn this
| around. Europe stands with Ukraine
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| One more, somewhat important, detail that's also very telling
| about where the US administration is heading.
|
| Reuters and Associated Press were barred from Oval Office during
| this meeting, but a Russian state news agency TASS reporter was
| allowed - into the Oval Office.
|
| Wake up America before it's too late.
| rsyring wrote:
| There are plenty of us who are awake. But lots of the voting
| public wanted this man in office. And they are getting what
| they wanted, apparently, b/c he was clear about who he is and
| what he was going to do.
|
| We'll have at least two years of this. One can hope 2026 will
| see a massive tide turn in congress and the Senate and maybe
| Trump will be impeached. But, it doesn't seem likely, and even
| if it happened, they can't impeach his entire administration so
| not sure how much can really change until 2028.
| surfpel wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| You posted this 24 times. That's abusive. Please stop now.
|
| Also, we ban accounts that cross into name-calling and
| personal attack, so please stop that too, regardless of how
| wrong others are or you feel they are.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| paxys wrote:
| > Wake up America before it's too late.
|
| The time to wake up was 2016. It is already too late.
|
| 33% of Americans have their heads in the sand and are believing
| the establishment talking points and amplifying them.
|
| 33% know what is going on and are cheering it on.
|
| 33% don't care either way.
|
| Hard to say which group is doing more damage to the country
| tbh.
| selykg wrote:
| There are those of us that hate this but have no idea how
| they can help.
| aparticulate wrote:
| What specific problem are you looking to solve?
| sigmarule wrote:
| Presumably one of the issues being discussed here, such
| as mitigating the effects of Russia's wildly successful
| manipulation campaigns that have resulted in both US
| policy and cultural shifts in favor of Russian interests.
| To skip some steps in this comment chain, and at risk of
| being presumptuous, pick an option from this technically-
| exhaustive list:
|
| Do you believe that:
|
| 1. Russia has not engaged in misinformation-based
| influence campaigns targeting US citizens
|
| 2. Russia has engaged in such campaigns but to no
| tangible effect, and they therefore require no response
|
| 3. Russia's influence campaigns saw success, but not to
| the detriment of the US, and they therefore require no
| response
|
| 4. Russia's success harms US interests, but it would be
| hypocritical to actively respond given the US' past
| actions
|
| 5. Russia's success is tethered to cultural shifts, which
| are impermanent and therefore don't necessitate an active
| response
|
| 6. Russia's success can only be effectively countered by
| the gov't, so civilian attempts at helping are futile
|
| 7. None of the items above relate to the topic of
| discussion in this thread, i.e. this comment effectively
| strawman-ing
|
| 8. The above points are non-exhaustive
|
| I'm quite sure an intelligent person with an open mind
| can be convinced that each of the above points is false,
| save the last one.
| aparticulate wrote:
| To follow your line of questioning, which I do
| appreciate, It would be that Russia has engaged in
| influence campaigns in the West, of course, but that we
| do that the West does this as a matter of course
| worldwide and our schemes are much more elaborate,
| anyway.
|
| I also agree about in 5, Russia is convieniently riding a
| wave of populist conservatism which Putin (cynically,
| corruption-based, or otherwise) aligned with the Orthodox
| alignment in Russia. (Men/Women are different, global
| woke policy, SDG development goals etc) Many working
| class people are sick to death of effete urbane
| progressive politics (doesn't even really benefit any
| core economics) I would say this is a bigger propaganda
| play from Russia = Give sympathetic activists ammunition
| for cultural victories (that were fragile and brainless
| Western ideas anyway.)
|
| The problem with this granular obsession of a deep Russia
| conspiracy inside the US is that you aren't even really
| aware about what the propaganda they are saying on their
| side and not really cogniscent that Western foreign
| policies engage in pretty ugly propaganda, unlawful
| killings as a matter business.
|
| Russia propaganda is simply more advanced version of the
| type of propaganda we were doing anyway. It's just that
| you don't see your own side as capable of misinformation,
| influence peddling worldwide and they are guilty of it.
|
| EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op -- and you worry
| about what; a few scary Facebook ads? Is there a
| particular piece of misinfo on RT you are concerned
| about?
| slater wrote:
| _> EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op_
|
| [Citation severely needed]
| gkoberger wrote:
| I think there's a large portion (let's call it 22.47%... aka
| the percentage that voted for Kamala) know exactly what's
| going on, care a ton, and lost the election.
|
| And then there's a large percentage for whom this whole thing
| just feels futile. It's not that they don't care, but they
| dislike Trump and feel like Democrats are unable/unwilling to
| rise to the occasion. (After all, 4 years later, Democrats
| just fired up the republican base and did nothing to protect
| Americans)
| blacksqr wrote:
| Been saying since the Clinton years that the American
| electorate is a three-way split between the stupid, the crazy
| and the feckless.
| sunjieming wrote:
| Just fyi - That reporter wasn't on the approved list and was
| removed once white house staff became aware of their presence.
| rsyring wrote:
| Are you saying they got into the _oval office_ accidentally?
| That seems really hard to believe.
| krashidov wrote:
| this makes it even worse
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "Russian state media wandered into the Oval Office without
| permission" really isn't a comforting explanation.
| blacksqr wrote:
| This is what's know as "ass-covering."
| martinky24 wrote:
| What exactly are you suggesting by "Wake up"? How can I
| actionably do something to "wake up"?
| righthand wrote:
| Smell the coffee.
| beretguy wrote:
| I think start participating in protests to begin with.
| jbm wrote:
| I remember when that was tried and ignored.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
|
| I find this sort of suggestion to be 100% reminiscent from
| Ship of Fools, or to be slightly more charitable and work-
| safe, the protestors in the lemonade episode of Boondocks.
| The captain is nuts, Jasmine is almost a slave, and you're
| going to protest?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn-BXw_8RbI
| bilbo0s wrote:
| This.
|
| People abroad don't realize, the average American person is
| completely powerless.
|
| Yes, we may lament the troubles that the current
| administration is causing for our allies, (or, I guess,
| _former_ allies) abroad, but there 's next to nothing we can
| do about it.
|
| Again, buyer's remorse is all we can muster right now and it
| doesn't do anyone any good. At this point, we have no choice
| but to search for what positives we can work with that come
| out of the current administration, and just live with the
| consequences of the rest.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The second amendment was put in place _very explicitly_ as
| the final check against a despotic overthrow of the
| Constitution. Realize we 're at the very brink and prepare
| yourself for a revolution. And stop fooling yourself into
| thinking things can't be that bad.
| krapp wrote:
| There won't be a revolution, who do you think the gun
| owners all voted for? As long as Trump doesn't touch
| their guns, they aren't going to do a damned thing.
| colechristensen wrote:
| I think you're missing the point of what was meant by
| "prepare for revolution", and confusing the folks who are
| vocal with their political views and those who aren't.
| riku_iki wrote:
| its funny that dems are those who suppress second
| amendment.
| latexr wrote:
| Doesn't look that suppressed to me.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_t
| he_...
| riku_iki wrote:
| Yes, options are to have some number(potentially
| insignificant compared to deaths caused by obesity or
| overdoses for example) mass shootings or kiss the feet of
| the dictator.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| Young people often feel powerless today indeed, not only in
| the US but in most parts of the West.
|
| One of the reason is that they never had to go through
| really tough times - as a country. We're living in times of
| prosperity and stability pretty much all of our lives. And
| we take it for granted. It's not !
|
| But the thing is, that people do have power. Start calling
| your representatives, take it to the streets. All of you.
| If the 50% of voters that voted for Harris show up on the
| streets protesting, things will change. Take real action.
| latexr wrote:
| What about all that talk about the second amendment and it
| being an essential right to fight an oppressive government?
| Aren't the "good guys with guns" supposed to be keeping the
| government in check?
| colechristensen wrote:
| It's getting to be about time for pitchforks and torches in
| front of the offices and homes of your elected Senate and
| House representatives demanding they exercise their
| constitutional duty of checks and balances against the
| executive.
|
| At the very least send letters, make phone calls. Let them
| know if they don't stand up to a dictator they've lost your
| vote.
|
| Comment on all of the elected Democrats' posts "oh no
| repulicans just did this!" and let them know that whining
| isn't leading and they need to shut up and do something.
|
| I'm encouraging every Democrat to register as a Republican,
| vote for the most centrist candidates in the next primary,
| and if they win, vote for any Republican that has an
| independent thought over a Democrat who knows nothing but how
| to sit around uselessly and complain.
|
| And when the revolution comes, the first people who should
| get the most blame are those who chose not to use the power
| they had to do anything about it.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Going to bat for AP and Reuters, golly
| sigmarule wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what sources of information do you trust
| more than AP and Reuters?
| akmarinov wrote:
| So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine
| - weapons, intelligence, the works.
|
| Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won't
| represent anyone with a stake in the war. They don't have people,
| territory, anything at stake, they don't get refugees and
| generally aren't directly affected in any way.
|
| What are the chances that they just leave Ukraine, Europe and
| Russia alone from now on and leave them to sort it out on their
| own?
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Despite all the rage in these comments, the base of the right
| largely views this as best possible outcome.
| redmajor12 wrote:
| Supporting peace?! That's a right wing cause now?
| wilg wrote:
| no one with a brain believes you're supporting peace even
| if you try to meme it to be true
| Cornbilly wrote:
| Well, you just nailed why this line works on voters.
|
| Here's the other one that works on that same crowd:
|
| "We need to fix the budget to close the deficit. We're
| going to leave spending basically unchanged and cut taxes
| for the rich."
| jandrese wrote:
| Supporting peace via the 2025 version of the Molotov-
| Ribbentrop pact? It is very important for future world
| peace that Russia not be successful in this war.
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Their Peace is Ukraine laying back and taking it.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Why do some many people think enabling invaders is
| "supporting peace"? Chamberlainism used be so verboten.
| akmarinov wrote:
| At this point that sounds like a good deal.
|
| Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.
| consumer451 wrote:
| From the ashes of the fall of Pax Americana will rise Pax
| Europa.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Not going to happen. EU has its own massive problems. And
| the countries are not aligned on the politics at all.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Yeah, that's not the vibe I'm feeling over here at all.
|
| The USA aligning with Russia was a major wake up call
| here, and it is leading to solidarity the likes of which
| I've never seen.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1irgt3n/german_c
| han...
| simmerup wrote:
| In return we can replace all the McDonalds and KFCs with
| European alternatives, and kick out Meta and the rest of
| the tech imperialism.
|
| Don't pretend America gets nothing out of its role as
| global hegemon.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| That would be a good ending by now - USA can start _supporting_
| Russia. With intelligence, with weapons.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Yeah but why? To what end?
|
| Russia gets USSR back together? What does Trump get out of
| that?
|
| And don't start with any of that "Trump was turned by GRU",
| "they have dirt on him", "he's bought by Russia"
|
| He's got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that'll give him
| endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis
| donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc -
| he doesn't want or need money
|
| He's at the top of power - both houses, presidency, supreme
| court all will follow whatever he says without a second
| thought, commander of the strongest military the world has
| known, richest nation in the world - there's hardly any more
| power to gain.
|
| He doesn't need to care about getting reelected, he won't get
| removed from office. He's 80 and whatever - there's nothing
| to fear in his future as he's at the end. He doesn't care
| about the Republican party, so setting that up for the future
| doesn't matter to him.
|
| Any dirt they bring out can just be handwaved away as AI
| generated and no one in his base will believe it regardless.
|
| So he can't be a Russian asset, he's beyond that and
| untouchable to the Russians.
|
| So what is it? What is he after?
| solid_fuel wrote:
| I think this:
|
| > He's got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that'll give
| him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis
| donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc
| - he doesn't want or need money
|
| is flawed thinking.
|
| _No billionaire ever needs more money._ But they all spend
| their time trying to make more money anyway. Think about it
| - these are people who have a _billion_ dollars, but
| instead of starting charities and giving it away or
| retiring to an island, they take their money and power and
| use them to get more money and more power. It 's greed. So
| I reject the idea that Donald Trump doesn't want more
| money.
| akmarinov wrote:
| But he literally has it all in all but name.
|
| He can have direct access to any of the big billionaires'
| finances, DOGE is restructuring money left and right. 2.4
| billion go into the SpaceX for an FAA contract, who's to
| say a billion of that doesn't go to Trump related
| businesses.
|
| We've seen it happen where foreign dignitaries stay at
| Trump hotels when visiting DC, etc
|
| There's just no point in having it under Trump's name,
| but if he wishes - he could be the first trillionaire
| cowgoesmoo wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that's what Trump wants if the mineral deal
| isn't signed. And now the mineral deal seems more and more
| unlikely.
| code_biologist wrote:
| Alex Krainer has speculated that Zelenskyy literally can't
| sign a mineral deal because those rights were a secret part
| of the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership deal, making this all
| a bunch of theater.
| akmarinov wrote:
| There's 0 chance Zelensky signed with the UK if there was a
| possibility to secure the US instead
| gattr wrote:
| On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Zelenskyy has had similar
| exchanges with Biden and the members of his administration in the
| past few years. And I understand (I think) the realities here:
| the US isn't doing anything out of the goodness of its heart;
| Putin's idiotic "short victorious war" blunder presented a nice
| opportunity to weaken Russia via a proxy war, no decisive
| military/materiel support was given, just enough to keep Ukraine
| going, etc.
|
| But FOR GOODNESS' SAKE, these dealings and bickering are supposed
| to happen behind closed doors! You give the public just the bland
| courtesies and assurances! The US president and vice president
| have come across as impulsive 4-year-olds throwing toys out of a
| sandbox.
|
| I used to think that the novel "The 2020 Commission Report on the
| North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States" ([1]),
| which ridicules Donald Trump quite a bit, was overdoing it for
| humor. Now I'm not so sure.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_2020_Commission_Report_on_...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| For a second I thought this was by Chuck Tingle rather than
| Arms Control Wonk
| dworkr wrote:
| Zalensky is right. Russia started it, if we have to destroy the
| planet with nukes and kill every single European of fighting age,
| we can never, must never, surender to Putin. And think of the
| great innovations in murderous drones we will get out of an
| ongoing multi-decade prixy war, all that ingenuity and Ukranian
| expertise in killing can be ours for very, very low cost!
| Beginning to wonder about Trump's priorities.
| alberth wrote:
| Can someone ELI5 the facts & dynamics at play - without taking a
| side in this topic?
|
| Seems like POTUS feels used / manipulated, but how & why?
|
| Zelensky seems to disagree with some apparent proposed plan, but
| what is the plan & why does he disagree?
| nikodotio wrote:
| Not make it political... you're joking right?
| liveoneggs wrote:
| When Russia annexed crimea in 2014 (phase 1 of the current war)
| the response was sanctions because no one wants WW3.
|
| Russia realized it can keep taking territory if it does so
| slowly because everyone is afraid of a bigger war and sanctions
| don't bother the Russian elite that much, so in 2022 they start
| phase 2 and absorb the additional sanctions.
|
| Trump has a new capitulation deal for Ukraine in hand, possibly
| pre-approved with Russia, but Zelensky either backed out of
| accepting the terms or was otherwise surprised about the
| details and didn't play ball with Trump; possibly because it
| included him losing a lot of face.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| One possibility is that foreign policy is in fact often driven
| by domestic policy.
|
| It sounds like this is the sort of reaction that Trump voters
| might like - both the form and substance. So Trump obliges. The
| foreign consequences might be of secondary importance to him.
|
| Another possibility is that, we have seen over the past decade
| or so, illiberal autocrats seem to support and like each other
| - Orban, Putin, Le Pen in France, now also AfD and Musk. They
| seem to like the idea of strong leaders such as themselves,
| carving up the world. This might motivate Trump to side with
| Putin.
|
| As to the plan: there doesn't really seem to be one, as far as
| I can tell. Trump implied there's some mineral extraction deal
| he wanted from Ukraine but unclear how it works. It doesn't
| promise the one thing Ukraine needs, which is security.
| Depending on your viewpoint, you might say Trump is extorting
| mineral rights from Ukraine, or that they want to put some
| structure on how the mineral wealth will be used to rebuild
| Ukraine - that's what is discussed at face value. But either
| way, for any mineral extraction, you need peace, so it's
| unclear why you would even discuss this while the war is going
| on.
| surfpel wrote:
| Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| That explains everything, the way most of the world views the
| situation. Note the date on the video.
| alberth wrote:
| An 85-min video wasn't exactly what I was looking for :)
|
| But appreciate you sharing.
| surfpel wrote:
| It's WELL worth it in my opinion :) Cheers!
| DrNosferatu wrote:
| Didn't a Trump call with the Danish prime minister also end like
| that?
| brickfaced wrote:
| All President Zelensky had to do was say "thanks for your
| support" and have the hard conversations behind closed doors.
| Instead he tried to use high-pressure negotiating tactics in
| front of the cameras, on Donald Trump of all people. This was
| clearly a mistake, and now his diplomatic incompetence and lack
| of basic gratitude and respect will cost Zelensky and his country
| dearly.
| nxm wrote:
| He did the same to Biden privately:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna54592
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| Absolutely correct, huge blunder on Zelensky's part, even
| though many here are angry with Trump
| StefanBatory wrote:
| I'm afraid of USA by now.
|
| That one day they will sever ties with Europe, I expected. But
| not becoming an actively hostile state.
|
| I am left wondering - how long it will take until Americans start
| _openly supporting_ Russia and China?
|
| When I was younger, anti-American people were a source of jokes
| for me. Being a Pole, why would anyone be against our ally? Well,
| now I see. And it's painful to say that, but I'm starting to see
| Americans as people in very negative light. Perhaps you were
| hated in the rest of the world for a reason.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| It's sad to be smaller countries.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| A lot of people here are angry with Trump about this. But if you
| watch the full meeting, it's clear Zelensky could have avoided
| this fiasco.
|
| Just the facts:
|
| 1. Zelensky did indeed say thank you, at the beginning of the
| conference.
|
| 2. Zelensky made faces at various points of the initial
| questions. Mostly in frustration with reporters but also in
| frustration with Trump
|
| 3. Zelensky shook his head when Trump started making some remark
| he disagreed with. A reporter even followed up on him shaking his
| head. This was the preamble to the bigger argument.
|
| 4. Finally, Zelensky asked Vance a provocative question "what
| kind of diplomacy are you talking about?" which started the
| shouting match.
|
| Zelensky and this administration simply do not want the same
| thing. This kind of altercation was probably inevitable in some
| fashion, but it should've been done in private. Zelensky now
| gives no chance for the administration to even save face if they
| _do_ decide to help more.
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| The US walks alone now. Vulnerable and weak.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Alone? Maybe.
|
| Vulnerable and weak?
|
| Um, anyone who believes this is just not engaging in
| dispassionate analysis of the situation. We are a lot of not so
| good things. Weak is _not_ one of them.
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| Any nation alone in a world of nations with strong alliances
| is weak.
| arjunaaqa wrote:
| Strange to see people supporting Zelensky here.
|
| He has lots of history proving he is no innocent man.
|
| He comes from theatre background, so he loves doing theatrics.
|
| He is cause of this public infighting.
|
| Look at full interview please.
|
| - He is president of one of most corrupt countries, don't think
| him as a saint.
|
| - Look at reactions of his own ambassador, you will understand
| why she is disgusted.
|
| - Trump is a straightforward man. Zelensky very well knew terms
| of deal before he flew to Washington.
|
| But he came because this drama is what he wanted, for his selfish
| and sponsored agenda.
|
| This will not end well for him.
|
| Ukrainians need a different leadership.
| surfpel wrote:
| There is a minority of Westerners who are aware of the truth.
| For those who aren't in the know:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| Note the date on that video.
| vardump wrote:
| > Note the date on that video.
|
| Seems to be 2 years after Russia first attacked in 2014. Why
| does that matter?
| surfpel wrote:
| Why does the source of a conflict matter? What a ridiculous
| question.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8
| bendigedig wrote:
| Trump is a straightforward man?
|
| Trolololololololol
| captainkrtek wrote:
| Absolutely heartbreaking. How many of the people arguing have
| seen any footage of the atrocities committed by Russia.
|
| It is sobering to see women and children shelled in their homes
| and hospitals. 20 Days in Mariupol is free to watch on Youtube
| (Won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last year):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvAyykRvPBo
| eunos wrote:
| Ultimately what should be inferred is that Liberal idealism is
| receding or even gone.
|
| It's all pure raw quid pro quo from now on.
| Animats wrote:
| On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from Ukraine.
| Most of the minerals mentioned, except titanium, are un-mined
| deposits. Or things the US has plenty of already, such as oil,
| natural gas, coal, and iron.
|
| Here's a rundown:
|
| - Rare earths:
|
| I've mentioned the MP Minerals, Mountain Pass, CA mine before.
| The US doesn't have enough rare earth refining capability, and
| China won't export the technology. So US ore goes to China for
| processing. Or did, until DoD paid for a separation plant at
| Mountain Pass. That problem is close to being solved. That new
| separation plant is running. A plant for the final step, making
| magnet-ready metal, has been built in Texas, again by MP
| Minerals, and it's about ready to open.
|
| What's happened with rare earths is not that they're rare. It's
| that China undercut US prices so much that the Mountain Pass mine
| went bankrupt. Twice. In 2015, there was a rare earths glut. Look
| at WSJ rare earths articles back to 2011.
|
| There are large un-mined rare earth deposits in Colorado and
| Wyoming, with startups talking about mining them. Whether this
| makes economic sense is unclear. If all those start up, the price
| will crash again and they all go bust.
|
| Three years ago, the US rare earths situation looked bad. Not
| today.
|
| - Uranium
|
| The US has plenty of uranium resources. Canada and the US are
| historically the biggest producers.
|
| - Titanium
|
| Titanium ore has supposedly been discovered in Tennessee. See
| https://iperionx.com/ Are those guys for real? Not clear.
|
| - Lithium
|
| The US produces about 75% of the lithium it uses. New deposits
| have been found in Arkansas:
|
| https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/unlocking-ar...
|
| And in Nevada:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCWeZiVsotc
|
| - Graphite
|
| China is the leading producer, but Canada and Norway are ramping
| up. There hasn't been US production of _natural_ graphite since
| the 1950s. US production of _synthetic_ graphite satisfies most
| US demand. (https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/pp1802J) Several
| new synthetic graphite plants are being built in the US.
|
| As we've seen in rare earths, when the cheaper sources raise
| their prices, domestic production increases. It seems to take
| about three to five years to get a big mining operation going.
|
| Quietly, during the previous administration, there was funding
| for US mineral projects in rare earths, graphite, and lithium.
| It's no secret, but most coverage is from sites that cover mining
| and minerals.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Not sure why you're counting Canadian uranium deposits on the
| American balance sheet.
|
| So far at least, these are under our own control and we still
| have the free will to decide how they are traded.
|
| Unless the new regime in the US really wants to show its true
| hand, I guess.
|
| Maybe we can toss a 25% export tariff on them, since the US is
| trying to strangle our economy anyways.
| Karellen wrote:
| > On the minerals front, the US doesn't need anything from
| Ukraine.
|
| Need's got nothing to do with it. Bullies don't take what you
| have because they need it, they take it because that's what
| _you_ have, and they want to take it away from you, just to be
| taking it away from you.
|
| For Trump, it is not enough that (as he perceives the
| situation) he wins, rather than (as he perceives) everyone else
| loses. Even people's whose backs are up against the wall.
| _Especially_ people whose backs are up against the wall. If you
| don 't exploit the weakest player at the table, why are you
| even playing?
|
| (Not that Trump knows anything about gambling... who the fuck
| loses money running a casino... on multiple separate
| occasions...)
|
| Trump isn't making deals based on carefully considered
| advantages and concessions. He's just grasping his tiny hands
| at whatever comes in reach, whether or not he needs it, like
| the half-wit schoolyard thug he is.
| code_biologist wrote:
| I've seen speculation that rare earth mining is environmentally
| destructive enough that it faces massive (expensive) regulatory
| hurdles in the US. Much easier to pay politicians in less
| developed countries to do it there.
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic...
| barbequeer wrote:
| if there's one thing we can be sure of with the current
| administration, it's that regulatory hurdles aren't going to
| stop them doing what they want
| rjbwork wrote:
| One reason they're running roughshod over the EPA, among
| other agencies.
| Animats wrote:
| Mountain Pass, one bankruptcy back, beat that problem. It
| took some new technology. The system is closer to closed-
| loop, rather than using huge amounts of water and producing
| huge amounts of sludge in evaporation ponds. That's what the
| mines in China do, and the sludge ponds are visible from
| orbit.
|
| Here's the Sierra Club report from 2011.[1] They were OK with
| the mine. So was the state of California and the US EPA.
| Problem solved.
|
| Then in 2015, after all this was working, China cut the price
| of rare earths.[2] Mountain Pass mine shut down, and
| Molycorp, the owner, went bankrupt. But the equipment was
| stored and maintained. When the price of rare earths from
| China went back up the next owner, MP Minerals, bought the
| assets and restarted operations.
|
| This time, the new buyers made long-term deals with the US
| DoD and General Motors to guarantee a market at a price at
| which they could operate. That seems to be working.
|
| Much news coverage of mineral issues tends to lack
| background. Better info is available, but it's on mining
| industry sites, in USGS reports, and in places most people
| don't read. Punditry is cheap. Reporting is expensive.
|
| [1] https://www.desertreport.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2011/03/DR_S...
|
| [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2015/05/15/chin
| ese...
| casenmgreen wrote:
| The minerals deal made no sense.
|
| 1. If you wanted minerals because of strategic concerns, you
| would not source them from a State which has been invaded by
| Russia. This is not a stable, reliable source.
|
| 2. The deal we saw details for was a jointly controlled fund
| for investment, where 50% of profit of State owned mining and
| related infrastructure would be deposited. There's no mention
| there of mineral supply to the US.
|
| I did not understand it, and I still see no sense in it.
|
| What was actually going on?
|
| We saw Donald try to bounce Z into signing : "you have one hour
| to sign this".
|
| That obviously shattered any trust that might have been there.
|
| I don't think we ever saw the text of that first deal.
|
| Then the second deal was just this jointly controlled
| investment fund, which looked like a face-saver.
|
| In any event, USA is now out of the game.
|
| A coup is in the process of occurring, and once the judges and
| courts are subverted, will be complete.
|
| All this with the deal and D and Z is basically water under the
| bridge; EU has to stand on its own two feet now, and that's the
| situation here and now, however we got here.
| leptons wrote:
| >What was actually going on?
|
| I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a
| bad case of novichok or polonium.
| m463 wrote:
| Maybe they don't have strategic minerals, but they do have
| strategic democracy.
| neilv wrote:
| This is important and horrifying, and the BBC live coverage was
| one outrage after another.
|
| But HN is still feeling the previous few days of HN outrages
| (which involve tech).
|
| Are we going to have outrage fatigue, and let even more
| injustices slide? How do we manage that, and what is HN's place?
| basisword wrote:
| If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to
| take control of their own destiny they're idiots. Several
| European leaders visited this week bending the knee to try and
| stave off tariffs. Time to stand up, realise the US is no longer
| a reliable ally, and start building (on all fronts - military,
| manufacturing, tech, etc). Given the American people voted for
| this guy twice - the second time in spite of Jan 6th and multiple
| indictments against him - there's no reason to believe the next
| person they vote in won't be worse.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Everything must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-
| defence.
|
| You can't force people, you can't trick people.
|
| I may be wrong, but I think enough voters were deceived by
| Donald that the election was no longer well-informed.
|
| That's how he got into power.
|
| To the extent that's true, USA no longer had genuine elections.
| iugtmkbdfil834 wrote:
| Eh. A lot will disagree with what I am about to type and, tbh, I
| am hesitant to point out the obvious, but I will do this just in
| case:
|
| 1. None of it should be a surprise. Policy-wise, Trump's position
| was very much well known at this point. 2. For Zelensky, this is
| actually the least bad political option at this point, which is
| presumably why is doing it this way 3. Note the amount of
| astroturfing surrounding anything related to Ukraine. It used to
| be that you couldn't comment on anything about Ukraine without
| being given 'you talk like Ukraine has no autonomy' speech. Yes.
| On HN too. 4. To all the hyperbolic, hyperventilating accounts
| out there, please stop. You are not helping your cause. If
| anything, you are making it worse.
| bg24 wrote:
| I find it difficult to comprehend if the billionaires do not know
| this. That if the Government slowly turns into an oligarchy with
| their help, the Government will eventually turns against them
| too. They cannot escape the punishment.
|
| Humans (our leaders) have behavior that shows up when under
| stress or things do not go per their plan. Other countries are
| already noticing this about USA leaders and will not hesitate to
| exploit.
|
| My prediction for the future, with a heavy heart.
|
| - Feb/2026: China becomes #1 in technological progress. And
| America's relationship with former allies is irreversibly bad.
|
| - 2027-29: Russia continues to pamper President Trump for another
| term. Their goal is to create anarchy in America. They succeed.
| ericzawo wrote:
| Sitting US president siding with the RF. Truly unbelievable
| times.
| biomcgary wrote:
| George Washington's farewell address (1796) - on Europe: The
| great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in
| extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little
| political connection as possible. So far as we have already
| formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good
| faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests
| which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must
| be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are
| essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be
| unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the
| ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary
| combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
|
| Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to
| pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an
| efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy
| material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an
| attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve
| upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations,
| under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not
| lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose
| peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
|
| Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit
| our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
| destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
| prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
| interest, humor or caprice?
| guax wrote:
| He did not live through two world wars and the invention of
| ICBMs. His views might have shifted a bit.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Enough with the founding fathers. They are ancient relics. They
| may as well have lived on another planet.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's always noble quotes from them, too, like they're saints.
| Untouchable.
|
| And never the parts about keeping slavery or exterminating
| indigenous people or conquering Canada, etc being legitimate
| causes.
| yaksha wrote:
| The stand they took and what they created is what has led to
| where we are today. To disregard their advice is at the very
| least disrespectful.
|
| Regardless of where a set of ideas come from, if you disagree
| with them, argue against them head on and not with
| redirections to other topics.
| murkt wrote:
| The world is much smaller than it was 200+ years ago.
| yaksha wrote:
| I would argue that it was much bigger at that time. How many
| days of sailing would it take to cross the ocean? How
| undeveloped was the entirety of what we now have as the US?
| happytoexplain wrote:
| That is the parent's meaning.
| qeternity wrote:
| If the world is smaller today then it means it was bigger
| at that time. What are you confused about?
| lpapez wrote:
| Quoting founding fathers on contemporary issues always makes me
| chuckle.
|
| > If healthcare was a human right, then why didn't 18th century
| slave-owners put it in the Constitution?
| danny_codes wrote:
| Ah yes, the 1770s. Basically no difference between now and
| then. Every idea from the 1770s is perfectly relevant to the
| modern world /s
| gottorf wrote:
| Basic principles that change with the time aren't basic
| principles at all. Is the First Amendment guaranteeing
| freedom of speech irrelevant now because we aren't
| communicating via handwritten letters and bulletin boards
| anymore?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The modern conception of the First Amendment is pretty
| recent. It didn't even apply to state governments until the
| 1920s.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
|
| Their "basic principles" included counting some humans as
| 3/5 of one.
|
| John Adams himself signed
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts into
| law, too.
| sigmarule wrote:
| To say the same thing as everyone else, but in a different way:
| let's say Washington turned out to be some form of benevolent
| vampire, and was able to live through all of America's lifetime
| from 1776 to today; do you think he would be commenting on his
| social media platform of choice quoting his younger self, or do
| you think his position on this matter would have changed?
| biomcgary wrote:
| Washington's opinion might well have changed and, as noted in
| other comments, an armada of nuclear ICBMs does negate the
| distance that he referenced.
|
| Regardless of the hypothetical, isn't it clear that Trump IS
| meddling and not following Washington's injunction? (Also
| applies to Israel/Gaza.)
|
| In family and community (and internet) dynamics, meddling in
| other people's quarrels often leads to blowback. (Yes, I'm
| aware of the irony of making this comment on HN.) Is it
| really any different on the global stage?
|
| My genuine question: What are the best criteria for deciding
| when getting involved is better than remaining on the
| sidelines? Do those criteria apply at both hyper-local and
| global scales, or this there a phase transition in
| applicability?
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| It's preposterous to frame the whole thing about being
| isolationism or not. As if it's just a matter of "walking away"
| from Ukraine and letting them sort it out.
|
| In fact the US under Trump doesn't intend on doing that. It's
| not content to let Ukraine fight it out with Europes support.
| It's actively trying to force Ukraine down a path of American &
| Russian choosing, and trying to take Ukraine's resources in the
| process.
|
| Trump is trying to carve up Ukraine along with Russia. That's
| not isolationism.
|
| This is not isolationism and walking away from Europe to leave
| it to its own devices, even if that's how some on the American
| right are trying to receive it. It's actually imperialism. And
| imperialism in coordination with another imperialist power.
|
| Are you in favour of that?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Trump is trying to carve up Ukraine along with Russia.
| That's not isolationism
|
| Yeah, calling what Trump is doing wrt Ukraine "isolationism"
| is like calling the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact "isolationism".
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| 100% exact analogy.
|
| In any case, it's not _possible_ to post-facto have some
| sort of isolation here. Any withdrawal of American power is
| just its replacement by some other. Which America in turn
| will be enraged by, and the next round of the cycle will be
| explicit imposition of American power in some fashion by
| military means.
|
| Because that's the only thing that will keep $$ flowing.
|
| Why do right wing American isolationists somehow imagine
| they're running some sort of charity for the world that
| somehow Europe and others are "ungrateful" for? American
| military intervention exists for nakedly avaricious
| reasons. It is for maintaining the supremacy of American
| capitalism, and enriching American businessmen and to some
| degree some of the American people.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I wouldn't really view "avoiding foreign entanglements" as
| meaning "let's insult our guest unless they slobber at my feet
| like a groveling and servile mendicant."
|
| That said, I think Washington's advice should be considered as
| defined by a pre-globalization economy, and travel times
| substantially greater by orders of magnitude when compared to
| ICBMs. Imperfect analogy, but in some ways Europe was further
| away from the US then than the Moon is today.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Doesn't his quote hold true? The reason the US is involved
| everywhere is because it supports our business interests.
|
| The thing about the founders is that there are so many with
| such varied views that you can usually find a quote in support
| of anything you want.
| eightysixfour wrote:
| Did you post it because you agree with it or just for fun? It's
| a 250 year old statement in a world that didn't look anything
| like ours does today. In 1796 the United States was not a
| global power with nuclear weapons whose entire strength is
| derived from the global order of trade that we _imposed_ after
| World War 2.
|
| All of this realignment away from our allies is actually
| throwing away our greatest strength. I understand why people
| voted for Trump or a figure like him on the domestic front -
| people want to bring back manufacturing and lower-middle class
| jobs? Great, let's work with our allies to do it. To throw away
| the world order that we _won_ instead of iterating on it is a
| travesty and a fucking joke.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Keeping Russia in check through a European alliance, and China
| in check through the Japanese alliance, is central to
| protecting US economic interests.
|
| This _is_ choosing to be involved, for your own best interest,
| exactly as Washington described.
|
| Also, in 1796, the USA was distant to Russia and China.
|
| This is no longer the case; all possess through the nuclear
| weapon the power to strike upon each other devastating blows.
|
| Given the existence of nuclear weapons, the goal is now is to
| avoid major war completely, between any nuclear power.
|
| A major nuclear exchange will lead to devastating environmental
| consequences, no matter whom is involved.
|
| Finally when Washington wrote that, no one imagined the
| possibility of any one power conquering the whole of Europe, or
| of China rising to great power. The USA cannot withstand
| Russia, Europe, and China, combined.
| yobid20 wrote:
| The people of the US do not stand behind trump. Trump's word is
| not the word of the American people. Zelensky might not have
| Trump's support, but know that he does have overwhelming support
| from pretty much everyone else aside from the Trump clan.
| zfg wrote:
| Russia and China used to think they needed to beat America.
|
| Then they hoped America would beat itself.
|
| But I bet they never expected America to turn into an ally.
| gre wrote:
| What's wrong with being allies? Authoritarian countries unite!
| rllearneratwork wrote:
| This is a time to boycott all of the president's Elon
| enterprises. I just cancelled my Tesla solar installation in
| California. If you are thinking about buying a Tesla - don't.
| Also do not vandalize other peoples' Tesla.
|
| If you are thinking about working in AI for x.ai or Tesla - do
| not. This will not look pretty on your resume.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I took a look at the mutual funds in my IRA last night. Most of
| the market index ones hold a lot of TSLA - it seemed to be in
| the top 5 holdings of several of the ones I have (had). I put
| in sell orders last night. Not just because TSLA, but because
| of all the chaos this administration is causing re tariffs and
| everything else. I'll hide out in treasury money market fund
| for a while.
| bvan wrote:
| Trump, and his posse of minions, are just not equipped to deal
| with real-world events and threats. What a disgrace.
| leshokunin wrote:
| I'm not familiar with this type of masterful deal making.
| dave333 wrote:
| Zelensky should have asked Trump if he (Zelensky) need only lick
| Trump's boots or should he lick Vance's boots also.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| This was a setup. It wasn't meant to be a meeting where policy is
| negotiated, it was an attempt bully Zelensky into agreeing to a
| bunch of pro-Russian falsehoods in hopes that he'd get something
| from the US. Good on him for realizing that Ukraine will get
| nothing from our compromised government, pushing back against
| false narratives and not hurting his cause trying to pursue a
| "compromise" just like the one that Ukraine got in 2015 that
| Russia reneg'd on almost immediately.
| croes wrote:
| I guess tomorrow Trump calls Zelensky a dictator again.
| epolanski wrote:
| I see many, understandably, comments that empathise with
| president Zelenski.
|
| It is though to come to such meetings when the other party (the
| Trump administration) genuinely does neither care nor likes you.
|
| That being said, I'm gonna point out Zelenski himself.
|
| 1) You can't be sitting in the oval office and tell the president
| of one of the most belligerent and bloodiest countries in the
| world "you cannot understand how it is to defend yourself, you're
| surrounded by oceans on both sides". If there is one thing that
| you should never, ever do, is question America's willingness to
| pick a fight. That was what triggered hugely Trump (go check the
| video). That was a terrible mistake, directed to the bulliest
| president of the bulliest country in the planet, a gigantic
| blunder on its part.
|
| 2) I feel for Zelenski, but after what happened today, his
| political career is over, that's what pundits and political
| analysts all over eastern Europe are saying (they are much more
| critical of Zelenski's naivety than Trump's behavior). Former
| prime minister of Poland Leszek Miller has been very critical and
| said Zelenski came very unprepared and leaves in a worse
| position.
|
| He quits the White House in a critical situation and if Ukraine
| wants to get some kind of leverage it will have to necessarily
| consider a change of leadership. Zelenski's stance has been
| terrific in the first years of war, but now he's alone and unable
| to get most of what he can for Ukraine.
| croes wrote:
| > If there is one thing that you should never, ever do, is
| question America's willingness to peak a fight.
|
| But the choose to fight and it's not on their home ground.
| Totally different situation. You can't just leave if you begin
| to lose like in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
|
| They never faced the win or lose everything situation since
| their independence.
| epolanski wrote:
| But you don't go say it to the US President, least of all
| Trump, in front of cameras!
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| You're taken "you're surrounded by oceans on both sides"
| the wrong way. Zelensky was quoting Trump from just minutes
| before, where he himself said something along the lines of
| "we're going to be fine, there's an ocean between us and
| europe. no matter what happens, we're going to be fine".
| How do you justify saying something that irresponsible to a
| leader of an allied nation that is currently defending
| itself against an autocrat invasion?
| exitb wrote:
| Leszek Miller is entitled to his opinion, but it's not
| representative of what's being said in Poland. Whether Zelenski
| gets to keep his job is for Ukrainians to decide.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| Embarrassing buffoonery. I never thought I'd pine for the days of
| bureaucratic but stately presidents.
| gsibble wrote:
| What is this, reddit? Has nothing to do with technology. Flagged.
| xyst wrote:
| Yet another reason to be embarrassed as an American.
| xg15 wrote:
| I read on a pro-russian site that if there is a strategy behind
| it, it might be to break Russia out of the China/BRICS alliance
| and use them as an ally against the "real" enemy, which would be
| China.
|
| It would make some kind of sense and match the rhetoric of a lot
| of republicans - but on the other hand, it also sounds awfully
| risky especially if the plan is more or less known to anyone?
| topherpalmtree wrote:
| Whoever thinks that Russia will ever consider the US as an ally
| probably doesn't have a great sense of how Russia views itself
| and the US.
|
| They'll play the part of ally, to a limited degree, when their
| stooges in Western Democracies don't have any demands of them.
| But no amount of trade will change their priorities as far as
| diminishing the dollar with something they at least partially
| control.
| kelnos wrote:
| That seems somewhat laughable? Pro-Russian folks who are
| grasping at straws to spin what's happening so it doesn't look
| so bad?
|
| I can't imagine Putin allowing his country to be "used" like
| that (regardless of how desperate his situation gets),
| especially considering that China is literally next door and
| would absolutely destroy Russia in any kind of military
| conflict.
| dralley wrote:
| Didn't work for Clinton, didn't work for Bush, didn't work for
| Obama, won't work for Trump.
|
| This is the siren's song of Western Geopolitics. Believing that
| it will work This Time (tm) is a surefire way to get wrecked.
|
| Russia borders China, unlike the rest of The West. Why would
| Russia ever sign up to put themselves on the front lines of
| tensions between the West and China. But people delude
| themselves into believing that they will, because it would be
| very convenient.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| The Russian people are victimized by the kleptocratic petro-
| regime in charge, and the American people will be victimized
| the same.
|
| It's best not to see these as the actions of _governments_
| acting in national interests, but as a section of an trans-
| national _class_ acting in their own interest. With borders and
| statecraft being some of the pieces on the board they play
| with.
|
| Lines between countries are for schmoes like you and I. Trump
| owns capital and etc assets around the whole world, just like
| Putin.
| mopsi wrote:
| That's pure wishful thinking. Russia spans 11 time zones, but
| most of Russia's population lives near Europe, west of the Ural
| mountains. They have as little to do with China as other people
| of Europe. The "mental center" of Russia is close to Eastern
| Europe, and their greatest ambition is to dominate the
| continent, for a variety of reasons that would take too long to
| explain. They see the US as the archenemy, because the US has
| stood in their way since the end of WWII.
|
| Russia is willing to play an ally, but only insofar as it
| brings them closer to what they really want: Europe. Anyone who
| doubts this is utterly clueless about Russia and not worth
| listening to.
| trackone wrote:
| Things like this make it seem like China will be much more likely
| to try and retake Taiwan soon. Seeing things like this, it is
| hard to imagine that the US will help defend Taiwan by providing
| military aid. I can imagine that trump will try to ask for
| something in return first. Even something like trump asking for
| TSMC to be sold to trump supporters (musk and others) seems
| likely to happen.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| Either they get the island, or they play good guy and sell more
| stuff everywhere bc everyone hates America more.
|
| Trump loves speaking about cards, Xi is the guy holding all the
| cards, and keep you guessing.
| tnt128 wrote:
| The risk of China taking Taiwan by force, unprovoked, in the
| near future is vastly overblown, in my opinion. Everyone
| involved, including China, prefers the status quo. If there's
| one thing to know about war, it's that it's unpredictable.
| China hasn't been involved in a war for decades, and while its
| military looks good on paper, its actual performance in a real
| war still unknown. Failing to win or even losing a war with
| Taiwan would mean saying goodbye to its global dominance
| ambitions, and weaken Xi's leadership.
|
| The Chinese are strategic and patient. they don't need to take
| on this kind of risk right now.
| thefz wrote:
| I am sorry but the intelligent, cultured America I learned to
| love does no longer exist.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| It's gone. It's been going for a while, but now it's gone. I
| say that as an American. Take heed lest it happen where you
| live as well.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| All I can say is that Zelensky is a terrible negotiator.
| Recognize who you're dealing with, and adjust your stance
| accordingly. He should have negotiated a little bit but
| ultimately taken the minerals deal--give Trump the win with his
| base, and give Trump a reason for the US to join in the fight.
| Throw in something crazy, like a Trump golf course or a statue or
| something. He is a simple man to please! These are generational
| battles that will long outlive either of their egos: be humble
| and accept that in at least one regard, Trump is right: Ukraine
| doesn't have the cards.
| louthy wrote:
| The whole notion of Pax Americana, just like Pax Britannica
| before, all the way back to Pax Romana, is that peace (Pax) is in
| the interest of the dominant empire that enforces it.
|
| Why? Because the dominant empire that enforces it gets the most
| spoils from that peace. It is why Britain had the biggest empire
| ever and it's why the US is the richest nation on earth today.
|
| This point seems to be completely missed by Trump, Maga, the US
| talking heads, and even people in threads like this. If the US
| withdraws from being "the world's policeman" then it withdraws
| from its empire.
|
| As a European watching this unfold from the outside, it's hard
| not to see the actions of the US government as the beginning of
| the end of US dominance. It will likely hasten the collapse of
| the US dollar (if you can't force everyone to buy oil in dollars,
| then the world will shift, likely to Euros), does the US think
| their currency will remain the 'reserve currency of choice' if
| they isolate themselves from the world? The era of firing up
| those greenback printing presses whenever you want will be gone.
|
| Isolationism will just lead to Europe recreating (or re-
| purposing) the institutions that the US was critical in forming
| (The UN, The World Bank, etc.) and looking to be its own world
| peacekeeper. It will eventually move the dominance to whichever
| nation or nations fill the vacuum. The US will get poorer. It may
| not collapse, but you can't withdraw from being the dominant
| empire and there be no financial consequences. Just look at the
| collapse of the British empire.
|
| The problem is that this won't happen overnight. And the process
| of the US withdrawing will certainly lead to wars, maybe even a
| third world war. The withdrawal of its soft power via USAID will
| likely lead to famines, health crises, migrations, and a lot more
| refugees.
|
| You may think that we can just 'sit it out' and wait for Trump's
| term to complete. But, it's obvious that the Republican party is
| now the MAGA party. The former allies of the US need to realise
| that this is it. They need to fill the space as fast as possible
| and move forward without the US. The US is not an ally any more.
|
| It really is the last thing we needed after a financial crisis, a
| pandemic, and with the existential crisis - climate change -
| being ever more kicked into the long grass.
| roboben wrote:
| ...and removed from front page...
| yes_really wrote:
| I saw a lot of people justifying Trump's moves because "the US
| shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war".
|
| I understand that argument, but what about security guarantees?
| Zelensky has been simply asking for security guarantees so that
| Putin doesn't start another war in a few years (like he did in
| 2014 and 2022). Why can't Trump provide that? Why should we just
| trust Putin's word? Or is there something I'm missing?
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| In past agreements like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Western
| powers and Russia pledged security guarantees not to use force
| against _Ukraine._ Security guarantees in this context would
| mean the US pledging to use force against _Russia_ on Ukraine
| 's behalf, doesn't it? That's a much riskier proposition. That
| could potentially start WW3.
| parski wrote:
| The USA is such an embarrasing country. Zero dignity left. It's
| all coming down now.
| lijok wrote:
| For those interested in getting informed, I strongly recommend
| listening to John Mearsheimer's thoughts on the crisis in Ukraine
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 is a great talk on
| this).
|
| Once you understand the history behind NATO's expansionism, the
| unfortunate role Ukraine serves as a buffer zone, and the
| failures of US foreign policy under Obama, you will see how the
| crisis in Ukraine started. Then, once you factor in Zelenskyy's
| "non-negotiables", you will see how this exchange, while
| unprofessional, is not surprising in the slightest.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The problem with Mearsheimer is that he completely ignores the
| people of Ukraine.
|
| His analysis makes sense if you think people only live in the
| US and in Russia, and that Ukraine were an object.
|
| But when you realize that Ukrainians are people, and _they_ are
| choosing democracy and integration with the West -- it 's not
| something the US is instigating -- Mearsheimer's analysis falls
| apart.
|
| Because ultimately, Mearsheimer doesn't believe Ukrainians
| should have any choice over their own country. That only Great
| Powers like Russia and the US get to make choices.
| sirolimus wrote:
| Wouldn't surprise me if this OP gets flagged or has all anti-
| trump comments downvoted to oblivion by bots lol
| consumer451 wrote:
| Forget the theatrics for a moment, and look at this map. These
| are the facts that will not soon be forgotten.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1ixbbr9/countries_t...
| kombine wrote:
| US, Russia, Israel, North Korea - new axis of evil.
| consumer451 wrote:
| It has been reported that Israel was forced to vote this way
| by the USA.
|
| https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/trump-administration-
| insis...
| kombine wrote:
| This is a petty excuse. We just witnessed how USA tried to
| force Zelensky (who is in a much worse position than
| Israel) to sign a deal, and he refused. Israel voting this
| way falls in line with who they are.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Israel has voted the other way previously. For example:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Asse
| mbl...
| 7373737373 wrote:
| If they could be forced, they are not sovereign.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Goodbye to Americas standing in the world.
|
| We don't have to suck up to the US any more
| appel wrote:
| Deeply embarrassing and disturbing. What a sad spectacle to see
| the President and Vice President of the United States so beholden
| to a foreign dictator that they would debase themselves in this
| way. Unpresidential doesn't even begin to describe it.
|
| My heart breaks for Ukraine. The outcome of the November 5, 2024,
| election will prove to be a tragic mistake.
| pgib wrote:
| "All those decades of the arms race, and it turned out there was
| no greater damage you could inflict on a state than ensure it was
| led by an idiot." -Mick Herron, Bad Actors (from the Slough
| House/Slow Horses series)
| kombine wrote:
| Republicans have been delaying approval of military aid to
| Ukraine during the past couple of years, tying it to Israel
| (which itself is morally wrong). Now a Republican president has
| the audacity to accuse Ukraine of not winning - precisely because
| of lack of substantial military aid. Glad Zelensky called Trump
| out on his bullshit.
| markhahn wrote:
| As an American, I'm disgusted.
|
| Not only does Ukraine deserve respect and support, but the US's
| elected crazies are damaging the country. Soft power is real, and
| smart, power
| jmward01 wrote:
| US policy is now one of forcing the world into a zero sum game
| and it is a shame because the world isn't zero sum. This means
| the world will loose the gains from friendship and cooperation
| that increase the overall outcome for everyone. It is like living
| in a city where crime is expected so everyone puts up iron bars
| on their windows and the parks are all locked-down nightmares.
| When there is trust and cooperation you can have nice things like
| open parks and friendly establishments but when trust and
| cooperation go away you get bars on windows. This is a shame. I
| am ashamed of the US. I am ashamed that we are so shortsighted
| and scared that we have to play the bully and force a minmax
| solution when things could be so much better for everyone.
| rdedev wrote:
| Not just the US but a lot of right wing or authoritarian govt
| in general.
|
| The problem with this zero sum thinking is there is another
| player outside of the countries if the world; nature itself.
| Think natural disasters, climate change, diseases. No one can
| negotiate with it or form alliances. It does not care about our
| survival. The only choice we have is to come together to make
| sure we don't get screwed over.
| KevinMS wrote:
| Zelensky wouldn't have acted like that if he wasn't in the oval
| and on national TV. It was a performance in really bad taste,
| climbing to the moral high ground, and that rubbed a lot of
| people the wrong way. Zelensky even pissed off Lindsay Graham,
| _huge_ urkaine supporter in the senate, who looks like he 's done
| with him now.
| taosx wrote:
| Lindsay Graham looks more like he pissed himself. So after he
| saw that bullying and the way the president conducted himself
| he couldn't be more proud? I've met some ppl, some crazies
| included, but none that distort reality the way trump and his
| supporters do. Is there like a crisis in the american education
| system, what is happening there?
| asnyder wrote:
| Honestly, after watching the full press conference twice, I
| suspect this meeting will go down in history as a canonical
| example of "what not to do as a politician".
|
| It seems Zelensky was unaware he's dealing with Trump, his
| demeanor, and his presidency. Historical this or that is not
| applicable when dealing with someone like him. Trump will be
| Trump, and nobody should expect otherwise. Always best to
| understand and know your counterpart.
|
| I'm definitely no Trump supporter, but objectively, prior to the
| blow-up, Trump was being somewhat reasonable. Maybe the most
| Presidential I've seen him. He reaffirmed support for NATO,
| continuing sending weapons to Ukraine, and generally wanting to
| push efforts to stop fighting, etc. He respectfully let Zelensky
| speak numerous times, at length, on difficult subjects, even
| things he didn't agree with. He even respectfully looked at
| photos of prisoners offered by Zelensky. Compare that to his
| prior behavior with the UK Prime Minister just a day before where
| he cut him off numerous times forcefully.
|
| Zelensky made numerous mistakes, emotionally reacting and
| replying to reporters questions when not directed towards him,
| adding on more grievance, and generally not being as a politician
| needs to be. He clearly showed why being emotionally responsive
| doesn't work in a debate, court, or other significant and crucial
| meetings.
|
| The supposed Mineral agreement may just be a way for Trump to
| look like he got concessions or something in exchange to look
| strong to his supporters, especially compared to his favorite
| archrival Biden.
|
| If Zelensky had goals/aims he wished to reach, he should've done
| his best to ensure the truth and his viewpoint comes through when
| is applicable to the question being asked, but not offered
| voluntarily or in conflict with his ally's statement. His
| demeanor from the beginning of the broadcast was already chilly
| and stern. He should've let any need for venting to come out
| AFTER the signing, at the 2nd joint press conference scheduled
| for later in the day.
|
| If you watch Vance's initial statement, it was relatively
| supportive of Ukraine and leaned to neutral at the end. Nothing
| negative outright that needed to be added on to. Zelensky erred
| here by asking if he could ask Vance a question afterwards which
| led to the blow-up and escalation, and ultimately really bad
| decision of telling Trump he's going to feel this or that. This
| was a classic mistake. Question was over, should've moved on.
| Logically no possible statement could've helped his efforts or
| goals, so he only had the potential to hurt himself. Further
| being emotional, combative, and from Trump's perspective,
| relatively disrespectful did not help him. The entire over
| answering, and combative escalation was an emotional release from
| Zelensky and did not aid his aims, and ultimately hurt him.
|
| He left in the worst possible position. He didn't get to his
| signing, nor his second opportunity for public statements post-
| signing, where he would've had clear gains, while forcefully
| stating whatever truths he feel were being left out or gaslit.
|
| It seems Zelensky felt he needed to vent and express his people's
| pain, frustration, and anguish, but as the saying goes, time and
| place for everything, and unfortunately wasn't correct for
| either.
| sys32768 wrote:
| Here's seven minutes of head cam footage of a Russian and
| Ukrainian soldier fighting to the death with knives, for those
| who are more upset about Trump than the war itself:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1hrs6oz/clos...
| SergeAx wrote:
| If you follow the conversation, the beef started after President
| Zelensky asked the same question he has been asking since the
| beginning of this circus: What are the guarantees for Ukraine?
| Ukraine tried diplomacy in 2015 and 2019; the results are well
| known. Why fall for the third time for the same putin's trap?
|
| Instead of directly responding to direct questions, Vice
| President Vance starts shaming and bullying President Zelensky.
| This means the US has no answer and doesn't want to admit it.
| This is why Ukraine should walk away from the deal that gives
| them nothing.
| effed3 wrote:
| Bad feelings about this, bad diplomacy bad manners and usual
| bunch of false facts agains a leader fighting for freedom of it's
| own country, seems a one more act in these bad story where there
| are no more allies but servant. One more step in the takeover of
| freedom and democracy by a planetary oligarchy, beyond borders
| and states, this economic and financial power do not care aboout
| states and citizens, nor freedoms and basic rights, eg: i see so
| little differences betweed the power of Musk and those of Putin,
| at these levels the far right is only manpower.
| solid_fuel wrote:
| My god, the conduct by the administration this morning was
| disgusting. I have been an American my entire life - I have never
| seen conduct this shameful. Congress must act to reign this
| President in, we cannot abandon our allies like this.
|
| I am calling my representatives and _DEMANDING_ action, and if
| you care about this nation, the security of Europe, or defending
| a democracy against invasion then I recommend doing the same.
|
| It has reached the point where I cannot express my full thoughts
| on this matter without reckless language. But rest assured, if we
| (Americans) do not speak out and stop this NOW, it will get
| worse.
| metadat wrote:
| Is there better footage than this weird livestream which abruptly
| cuts off at 2h:20m?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmea-M9BvhE&t=8175s
| nickmp wrote:
| Extraordinary. I hope the Americans reading this please watch the
| full exchange with the perspective of history. I saw a hero,
| Zelenskyy, one of the great leaders of our time, and two
| shockingly awful bullies. Vance especially.
| MaxGripe wrote:
| I watched the entire meeting attentively from start to finish,
| and in my opinion, nothing major happened. There was a slight
| argument, but then the emotions cooled down a bit. What did
| happen, however, was complete madness in the media. The media
| went crazy. I think any rational person should know that it's not
| worth listening to the media, especially mainstream ones.
| angryreader wrote:
| ditto
|
| looks like many of these armchair strategists here have not the
| slightest idea of the atrocities of war.
|
| why don't they take a gun and join the massacre?
|
| ap reuters (here bbc to whom they sell, or wp, or nyt etc.) try
| to dominate the thinking of 4 billion people.
| MaxGripe wrote:
| Yeah, and how does the title "Zelensky leaves White House
| after angry meeting" match with Zelensky's slight smile and
| thumbs-up at the very end? Some people probably don't notice
| this because, instead of using reason, they let their
| emotions drive them.
| attentive wrote:
| 1750 comments, why is it #25 on HN?
|
| All the while "3,200% CPU Utilization" with 100 comments is #1.
| Which is niche at best.
| digitalnatives wrote:
| I don't see it at page #1 or #2
| The28thDuck wrote:
| This post was hidden by mods I think - not on front page
| dang wrote:
| You should, because everyone sees the same front page.
| dang wrote:
| This is answered in the FAQ:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, but I'll expand on
| what it says there.
|
| HN's front page, and the rest of HN, is a product of 3 things:
| community moderation (e.g. upvotes, flags), software moderation
| (e.g. flamewar detector) and moderator action (e.g. turning off
| flags, downweighting, selecting posts for the SCP -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308)
|
| [editing - bear with me...]
| shmerl wrote:
| Time for Europe to reduce the discussions and back Ukraine even
| more. Europe can't rely on Trump and his clowns anymore who will
| more likely side with Putin and other fascists than with free
| Europe.
|
| They should use all frozen Russia's money assets to back
| Ukraine's war effort (it still didn't happen fully). And increase
| weapons production and armies to adequate sizes ASAP (this should
| have happened "yesterday").
| hermitcrab wrote:
| A finally forced myself to watch the clip. What an absolute
| disgrace Trump and Vance are.
| fjjjrjj wrote:
| As an American I will have a hard time forgiving anyone that
| voted for Trump. He telegraphed his sick obsession with Putin and
| still was voted in. I am sorry.
|
| I hope we still have a country 4 years from now. He is a saboteur
| as is Musk and both should be considered foreign agents IMO. Yet
| they are running the country. Makes me want to vomit.
| worik wrote:
| This could be a good thing. Uniting Europe possibly
|
| Mr Trump is not wrong IMO that Europe has depended too much on
| the USA for too long.
|
| Europe is divided, both between and within nations, this might be
| the impetus needed to reverse that. Unite them in their
| diversity, and take their place in the world
| namuol wrote:
| So... Where are we marching?
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Zelesnky and Trump both want peace, but what is peace?
|
| The political spectrum is divided chiefly by how one views what
| peace is. On one side, John Locke's and the American founding
| father's, peace is the presence of justice. On the other side
| Thomas Hobbes' and Russia's, peace is the absence of violence.
| When you feel wronged, do you submit, or do you fight? If you
| fight you fight for justice. If you submit, it's because the
| violence is too much or those with the capacity for it are too
| strong, you would rather live a slave than die on your feet.
|
| Ukrainians are fighting for justice, for self determination, and
| for a better tomorrow. Ukrainians are better Americans than we
| are because they have chosen to risk their lives rather than
| submit.
|
| Peace must be due to justice, not submission. "Peace" due to
| submission is a false peace. It is the very definition of
| oppression.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Put down the pipe HN. Zelensky was completely out of line and
| disrespectful. You come to these things with hat in hand and you
| wear a suit. You hold your tongue and eat it for your people;
| your cause.
|
| Peace is difficult and dirty. It's not ideal. Enough dead young
| men. Enough destruction.
|
| What a failure of diplomacy.
| TriangleEdge wrote:
| Maybe dumb question, but I asked ChatGPT search and didn't get a
| straight answer, so:
|
| Why is Russia at war with Ukraine?
|
| ChatGPT tells me it's because of "western alignment". Trump told
| reporters 1m people died. Seems a bit excessive to me for
| political ideas.. I'd have an easier time believing it's a
| resource conflict or some oil field being liberated or wtv.
| pencilcode wrote:
| Donate donate to Ukraine https://u24.gov.ua/ Trump is simply
| abject
| TomK32 wrote:
| Isn't there anyone in the White House who makes sure Trump isn't
| inventing numbers? Put the actual dollar amount on a cue account
| if needed so he doesn't repeat the 350 billion again (of which
| most stays in the US anyways).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-28 23:01 UTC)