321–330 of 1001 posts
The USA stands in miserable disgrace.
Amazing to see Russia win the Cold War—one we didn’t even know we were in. Their propaganda network is so strong that it took 3 weeks to go from “Russia is the enemy” to “eh, we have other problems” amongst the folks who…subscribe accordingly. Absolute masterclass in projecting power in the digital age.
It would be one thing if there was a clear policy and adherence to it. In that case, you could discuss and reason in good faith. However there is no such indication that this decision is based on a considered policy. Trump's supporters would say that this is a result of not wanting the US being involved in foreign conflicts. That is a laudable goal, however that is not what is happening here. From the article > On Fr…
It is not a petty tantrum though it might look like one. You have to consider that the incumbents have won the US elections, that's not a small feat. What many people are missing is that if the US main challenger is China and beating Russia is a far thing, then it makes sense for the US to ally with Russia against China. For that, the US might need to give Russia something (some EU countries?) for this hustle and als…
For context, EU+UK is over 500M people, Russia is 143M.
I think two weeks back many Europeans took for granted (at least I did) we would get involved in the Pacific theatre if needed on US side, but after what is happenning now… I am for not getting involved in any coflict in Pacific if US treats us this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not a petty tantrum though it might look like one. You have to consider that the incumbents have won the US elections, that's not a small feat. What many people are missing is that if the US main challenger is China and beating Russia is a far thing, then it makes sense for the US to ally with Russia against China. For that, the US might need to give Russia something (some EU countries?) for this hustle and als…
> their own negligence. The US took Ukraine’s nukes in exchange for safety guarantees. The true extent of US commitment to european security has been clear to everyone for at least ten years. Hell, the French nuclear programme was premised on the fact that Paris didn’t trust the US to defend France. Do you think the easternmost NATO states have built their military doctrine on blind trust in Uncle Sam?
Please read the actual text of the memorandum, so you don't spread any more baseless accusations. It's only 1 page, it'll just take you a minute and the language it is written in is very accessible.
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Ukraine_Memorand...
The only point that even touches on any kind of guarantees is essentially a promise to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action" in the case of an attack or a threat of attack IN WHICH NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE USED. That last part is always conveniently left out whenever anyone tries to throw out the soundbite of "They gave up their nukes for security guarantees". And even if you assume that the nuclear weapon part only covers the "threat" part of the sentence and not the "attack", then you're still left with the only solid guarantee being the seeking of United Nations Security Council action.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does "nuclear weapons" attach to the first half of the or in section 4? Seems they wrote it poorly... "victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" You are also engaged in some sophistry, where you are acting as if the hypothetical obligation you are discussing is the only possible obligation. Selling aging weapons stock is pretty clearly assistance, and it…
Don’t randomly accuse people of “sophistry.” Zelensky is publicly demanding a security guarantee, and sprung that on Trump at the meeting. I didn’t say there couldn’t be other support, but the security guarantee is what I’m talking about because that seems to be critical.
Macron (president of France) visited the White House on Feb 24 and pointed out that security guarantees would be important and that the US could play an important role providing those guarantees. This discussion ended amicably. [1]
Starmer (Prime Minister of the UK) visited Trump on Feb 27 , and besides handing over an invitation from King Charles, also discussed the fact that there would need to be security guarantees in any particular Ukraine deal. This discussion also ended amicably. [2]
Zelensky (President of Ukraine) then visited on Feb 28 and reiterated the points his colleagues had made. This time something went wrong. [3]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/trump-macron-ukraine-russia-starm...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/trump-starme...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Trump%E2%80%93Zelenskyy_m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also you can donate directly for the kamikaze drones here: https://www.sternenkofund.org/donate They are extremely effective in countering russian troops. One drone costs as little as 500$
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also you can donate directly for the kamikaze drones here: https://www.sternenkofund.org/donate They are extremely effective in countering russian troops. One drone costs as little as 500$
[flagged]
It is quite easy to end the war: give enough weapons to Ukraine and put strict sanctions to Russia. However USA decided not to this. They sent some old weapons with huge restrictions to use against Russians, to be able barely survive.
End the war - means force Ukraine to accept capitulation and encourage Russians to advance to the next neighbor. This Trump-Putin deal looks like Hitler-Stalin agreement to divide Europe.
Russians takes Ukraine now, mobilize Ukrainians to the Russian army and will send them as cannon fodder to the Baltic states. This is a future of Trump's "peace" deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are already drafting an end to sanctions, which is unbelievable.
Excellent! The Russia sanctions are causing collateral damage to much of the third world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.
There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
It is not a requirement, it's the implementation. There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".