• pelikan@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    418·
    10 days ago

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

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

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

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

  • meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works
    203·
    10 days ago

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

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

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

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      222·
      10 days ago

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

      • meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works
        101·
        10 days ago

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

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

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

  • Grapho@lemmy.ml
    174·
    10 days ago

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

  • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
    165·
    10 days ago

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

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      21·
      7 days ago

      Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.

      Vibes, vibes, vibes.

      • tiredturtle@lemmy.ml
        1·
        7 days ago

        Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.

        Vibes, vibes, vibes.

        No. The material reality is that Transnistria is roughly 100–150 km from Odessa and not the thousand miles being claimed.

        Pskov is near the Estonian border, and St. Petersburg is on the Baltic Sea. Neither of these cities is close to Moldova, so they are largely irrelevant to any invasion plans in that region.

        It’s important to rely on concrete conditions and verifiable data rather than hyperbolic claims and vibing.

  • NikkiB@lemmygrad.ml
    4·
    9 days ago

    “He deserves special gratitude from the Ukrainian and European establishments for telling the truth before things go way too far.”

    Before??

    • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      6·
      10 days ago

      Nuclear war helps nobody. Hegseth doesn’t have an option here, nor does anyone in the West. They tried to push their nuclear capabilities to the last border and Russia stopped them. When the only further option is escalating towards nuclear war, then you really don’t have options. Hegseth, the media talking head that he is, has been tasked with communicating the reality on the ground, not making any real decisions here

  • Tm12@lemmy.caEnglish
    1214·
    10 days ago

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

    • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      17·
      10 days ago

      Russia does not have the ability to invade Europe and everyone knows it except liberals in America

      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
        14·
        10 days ago

        Russia is simultaneously two weeks away from running out of soldiers and sending toddlers to the frontline and about to march through Berlin.

  • cashsky@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    810·
    10 days ago

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

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

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    918·
    10 days ago

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

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      163·
      10 days ago

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

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        613·
        10 days ago

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

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

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          186·
          10 days ago

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

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

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            718·
            10 days ago

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

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
              173·
              10 days ago

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

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              185·
              10 days ago

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

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

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                515·
                9 days ago

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

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

                • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  163·
                  10 days ago

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

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  153·
                  10 days ago

                  NATO expansion:

                  .
                  NATO in general:

                  .
                  Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:

                • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
                  11·
                  9 days ago

                  Totally disingenuous understanding of what’s happening in this thread. There is no blind trust for the Russian government.

                  You have to understand one thing to unlock the perspective you need. It underpins both the reason MLs resist the official narrative of the empire and also why MLs accept certain narratives from other global actors. And that thing is an understanding of, and engagement with, history. It is our understanding of history that allows us to do readily understand when the empire is lying. It is also our understanding of history that allows us to readily understand when other states are saying something worth listening to. And it is our engagement with history that allows us to continue evaluating new statements from any sources.

                  In the case of Russia invading Ukraine, history is critical in understanding what’s going on. And the relevant history extends all the way back to Napoleon. Napoleon invaded Russia once. He fielded the French national military forces, along with some international forces, and marched literally all the way across Europe to invade Russia to enact discipline for Russia continuing to trade with England despite Napoleon declaring a unilateral universal blockade. It was on of the bloodiest campaigns in history and millions of Russians died.

                  Napoleon invaded Russia via the border that is Ukraine.

                  Another invasion killed millions of Russians, too. That was the Third Reich. They fielded their national military and they took marched across Europe to invade Russia. They also had international forces. They killed so many Russians.

                  The Third Reich invaded Russia via Ukraine.

                  The Ukraine border with Russia has been demonstrated to be impossible to secure without sacrificing millions of Russians lives. The solution, therefore, for Ukraine to be devoid of military threats against Russia - enough military to defend itself against European meddling, not so much that it could threaten millions of Russians lives.

                  We know this history. So when NATO does it’s first ever joint exercise with Ukraine in 2013, it raises a lot of eyebrows. NATO is a transnational nuclear military. It expands not by violence but by economic and political dominance. It is a standing army all over Europe but not controlled by European democracy. It has been demonstrated that NATO is controlled by the USA - again, a matter of history.

                  When Euromaidan happened in 2014, that was concerning to us because it was a movement that was aligned with European interests and explicitly a NATO-aligned movement. It got more worrying when we realized the US had top state actors on the ground including John McCain and Victoria Nuland. Russia choosing to annex Crimea was a clear message that Russia saw this particular movement as a threat, which we understand in the historical context of previous invasions.

                  After Euromaidan the NATO exercises got more numerous and more dangerous including flying B-52 nuclear-capable bombers in the region and simulating an invasion of Kaliningrad. Remember that military exercises and simulations are indistinguishable from real events until the last second when forces do not violate international law. That means the simulated invasion of Kaliningrad included the creation of supply chains and the mobilization of units and then moving them in formation to their target and turning away only when they reach the border.

                  This is a real and present danger to Russian security. If NATO establishes full capabilities in Ukraine, the only way for Russia to survive would be to lose millions of lives during an invasion over the border.

                  All of this comes from our understanding of history and our engagement with it to evaluate event and statements. So when Putin says NATO activity on Russia’s border is why he acted, we acknowledge the congruence with the historical reality. But when he says Ukraine should never have been granted independence, we understand the errors in reasoning while also acknowledging the strategic military perspective it comes from.

                  When Russia says they are de-nazifying Ukraine, we understand the historical context of why that statement can be made. But we are also materialists and we understand to what degree the statement is incongruous with reality and history.

                  This understanding and engagement with history is what liberals lack and it’s why those aligned with the empire can’t properly criticize the propaganda and it’s also why they are unequipprd to evaluate statements from other states, like Russia. It’s why counter-cultural liberals just blanket deny what empire says and then get confused why MLs are willing to support narratives that match Russian or Chinese talking points.

                  Unless you engage with history and dig in, your resistance to empire will always be shallow and your understanding of what the rest of the world is doing will be purely vibes based.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  135·
                  10 days ago

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

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