Trump refuses to say if he wants Ukraine to win the war
https://www.semafor.com/article/09/10/2024/trump-refuses-to-say-if-he-wants-ukraine-to-win-the-warOpen linkView original on lemmy.world1300
Comments481https://www.semafor.com/article/09/10/2024/trump-refuses-to-say-if-he-wants-ukraine-to-win-the-warOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
He'd give up on Ukraine. And call it a win.
"Winning the battle is worth losing the war"
(Trump, The Art of the Deal, pp. 179-181)
"I could make a deal with Hitler to stop this war tomorrow!"
Didn't work out so well for Stalin.
Yeah pretty much.
Aka appeasement. We tried it Donny. Though this time it's Trump who wants to be dictator.
Trump doesn’t care so long as Russia keeps paying him.
That's a short sentence for that many pages. I knew it was in big print, but...
It's illustrated so his voters can understand the book
From the chapter: "Yeah, but remember that one time..."
The Jews would have had peace if they'd just let themselves be taken to camps peacefully.
This is less funny because Russia literally did commit a holocaust in Ukraine.
or maybe extort them again.
Yea, that infuriated me.
He didn’t answer a single fucking question about anything, just ranted about illegals eating pets the whole time.
He is outing gop for eating pets. He just needs to do it under the radar.
Remember every blame the throw around is admission on their part.
Suddenly ol’ brainworrm endorsing Trump makes sense!
This is why I don't watch the debate. I know it'll just piss me off because he won't say anything but crazy shit.
It was great seeing Kamala get under his skin. The reaction cams were really fun seeing Kamala react like a normal human to his insane rantings and him just smoldering and getting angrier and angrier when she hit back
My favorite was when she clearly (very clearly IMO) seemed about to say "...but this motherfucker..." and restrained herself.
Omg I forgot about that moment!
trump:
But it was so crazy that it was incredibly funny. I was doing paraphrases of a lot of his responses in the pinned debate thread in c/news if you're curious.
The thing is, it isn’t actually funny. we can laugh at the old racist piece of shit criminal but it is actually quite sad and makes me angry that this is where we are.
I'll have to check it out! I do enjoy seeing the highlights and memes afterwards lol.
I was looking forward to what he was going to say about why he blocked the border bill. As expected, he chose to immediately talk about something else.
First time?
Let's not forget: it appears that JD Vance may be the originator of that whole farce.
In which case, Trump touted it because either a) they honestly think it is good propaganda which will sway the campaign, or b) Trump is quite literally eating his own dog food, because there are too many lies to keep track of.
Trump said during the debate that her vp pick was insane. I lol’d
So weird...
Don't worry, when Kamala catches and imprisons those illegals she will do transgender surgeries on them
Translated : I don't know shit, so you can't know shit. Corporations are gouging my shit, and I mad at Democrats for it.
I think the proper translation is "Da, let us argue amongst ourselves comrades. American pig dogs do not understand Mother Russia."
Lol. Nice one
Welcome to my block list.
Lol. Yeah, exclude opposing opinions, go live in your liberal echo chamber
This isn't an opinion it's word vomit lol
Lol. And this is just an ad hominem attack. Not my fault you only understand opposing opinions as "word vomit"
FTFY
Also, why do you have such a hardon for Trump when you aren't an American?
How'd you know I wasn't American?
First, a dozen eggs don't cost twelve dollars.
Second, in America the currency indicator comes before the number.
Third, "distugested" that's one hell of a typo
Sounds like a guy who thinks you need a license to buy a loaf of bread.
Why do people think a dozen eggs costs $12?
A quick search turned up this 18 count of eggs for $9 at our local chain. And that was just the first result I found that had the price on the page (you have to click a button to see it, unfortunately, but it is there).
Holy shit that's a lot for eggs.
At Ralph's 12 cage free large eggs cost $3.99
Free range (the most expensive if you are conscious about chicken treatment) large eggs are for $7.49
Lol and there's just no way to get information about something happening on the other side of the planet. Why, it takes our square-riggers six months to sail from there to here!
How is supporting Ukraine related to the egg shortage caused by avian flu?
I'm hoping Ukraine wins because I'm against imperialism and I respect the sovereignty of other nations. Pretty simple if you ask me.
Ok, that's a fair statement. Thank you.
Of course you do. Allowing borders to be redrawn by force isn't good for stability anywhere.
You think the cost of eggs has something to do with defense spending?
Also, when one country just straight up invades another, it can be pretty easy to choose which side is the aggressor and thus less worthy of support. But that’s just me.
So if you know this is the case, why would you not just do that research?
I understand the cost of living is very high, but there are numerous factors that play into that and specifically to the example of eggs the war in Ukraine wouldn't affect that supply chain in a significant way, and the aid also shouldn't impact it.
Providing aid, beyond preventing the war from being lost, potentially embolding Russia to continue advancing, is simply the right thing to do. Obviously Western nations have the privilege of being at peace, but that doesn't mean we should blindly turn our backs to the many countries who make our current situation possible through numerous imports and trade.
At the end of the day, you're entitled to be frustrated by the rising costs of living, and you're welcome to be angry about the war, but the way you worded your post feels more like willful ignorance than any real attempt to formally become educated.
I appreciate your opinion. I have "done that research" but there will always be someone who is more educated/better informed than I. I'm not so ignorant to believe that I alone know it all or have been better informed than some others.
I believe this indicates you are not one who is more informed than I. And potentially, it indicates you are less informed. But of course, based on what you understand, you take a stand on what you believe is right, and I fault you none for that.
When people stop caring for the plight of others, we all lose.
I agree, and you get my upvote for a true statement.
But also, I'm not convinced there would be more "plight" in a Russia win. I believe the opposite, in fact. I believe there would be less "plight" and suffering.
There is very much "plight" in their protracted war over there.
So if a group of guys came to your neighbors house and told the family that they're going to move into it with them, you wouldn't be for removing them, even if that meant a fight? It would be better to just let them move in because that way no one gets hurt?
And if they successfully move into your neighbor's house, they might have eyes on your house next.
Russia is trying to take over Ukraine, a sovereign country, by force, and other countries are trying to help Ukraine fight Russia. Yes, people on both sides are dying. Ukrainians apparently overwhelmingly believe it's worth the fight.
Absolutely not true for many reasons. One of them being that if they let Russia keep what they occupied, it will give Russia time to regroup and keep going.
Number 2, they’re torturing and killing those who don’t support the Russian regime.
So yea, while “stopping the bloodshed” sounds good in theory (That’s why Trump keeps repeating it), it will only embolden Putin and give him time to strengthen his forces and attack again later. This is appeasement and it doesn’t work.
Poland is most certainly next don't kid yourself.
That would be after the low hanging fruit of Moldova. Neighbors Ukraine, Constitutionally neutral, does not admit stationing foreign military troops on its territory, can only be altered by referendum, and not at all during a state of national emergency, martial law or war.
Where the fuck are you spending that much on eggs?
I'm going to go with "Russia".
Well it's a good thing that from the understanding of the people who make the choices you're in the wrong.
I think it should be readily obvious why the USA should defend a country against an act of aggression. For one thing, violating international boundaries and seizing land through war ought to be punished. The precedent should be set that doing so brings about international rebuke and strong consequences. For another, the USA made a security guarantee to Ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons. We should make good on it.
Ukraine joining NATO would have prevented this war. Russia isn't going to war with a country in NATO - just look at the Baltic states. They joined NATO to protect against a possible Russian aggression just like what's happening now in Ukraine. That worked. It would have worked for Ukraine and it's part of why I believe Putin pulled the trigger on this before Ukraine was in NATO.
I appreciate you coming with fair enough opinions without personal attacks.
If Ukraine joined NATO, it might not have prevented this attack, and that's the huge issue. Putin has indicated that it would not have stopped the invasion, which you seem to be educated enough to understand that would probably start WW3.
I can believe that because I think Putin doesn't necessarily want to start WW3. But he has indicated that it wouldn't have stopped him as well.
I personally don't believe it's worth to risk WW3 over the conflict of Ukraine and Russia. The history and issues of Ukraine and Russia are long, complicated, and frankly, IMO, hardly any business of ours.
I'm educated enough to know you're either deep in a hole of disinformation / misinformation or on Russia's side. We learned that appeasement doesn't work with Nazi Germany and other examples, Russia being the latest.
If you know of the history and issues of Russia and Ukraine then you'd know they're intrinsically linked to the USA and "Western" interests going pretty far back. Plus lots of trade flows through Ukraine and they export a ton of food - it's important to lots of innocent people who are also impacted by the war even if it's not by blood loss. The costs in lives is too high but also the costs in material, in trust, in future cooperation between nations has been eroded by Putin's actions.
You can't have it both ways. It's either he would or would not have. I think recent history has shown the exact opposite of what you claim Putin indicated. Nobody has invaded a NATO country because it works. That's why the reaction from Finland and Sweden to this Russian invasion was to join NATO after so many years of not being a part of it even bordering the USSR. They know Putin won't dare attack a member of that alliance. Clearly neutrality did not work when it came to Ukraine. Nor did appeasement, we're paying for not being tougher in 2016 but the time between then and 2022 was spent strengthening Ukraine's military precisely to stop the next occurrence of a Russian attack.
You... I don't even know where to begin. You don't understand how inflation works or how things on the other side of the world can impact us due to a global economy. You should care if Ukraine wins, because burying our head in the sand and carrying about only the US means we're left to feel the impact of global events were not engaging in.
Lol... you certainly didn't know where to begin or end. Next time, begin with reading comprehension. The egg example wasn't correlating inflation with the billions we sent to Ukraine. Money sent to Ukraine isnt directly affecting inflation. Rather, we have our own very important financial issue here in that states, sending billions abroad shouldn't be a priority over our financial issues here.
Ok, maybe this guy knows something.
Haha. Nvm... Help us, Lord.
Dasvidanya, are you and your family safe? Are you being coerced?
Ok bud, you really showed me.
Sorry... I shouldn't be an ass...
How much money do you think we "send over there"?
I think people get confused when they see millions of dollars in aid. They don't get it's all equipment that probably wouldn't have been used again anyway and think the US just prints a bunch of extra cash to send over.
I doubt he even got confused, he's just regurgitating propaganda.
It's hilarious when they say this. "Sending money over there" is a literal catchphrase for Trumpers.
He's full of catchphrases like this. It's all he knows how to do, rile up his idiot fanbase, because that's what it is, (no politician should have a fanbase) and shift blame/dodge questions. And he is frighteningly good at it.
Say what? How is that even a catchphrase? I don't recall hearing anyone ever say that "catchphrase." Who told you "sending money over there" is somehow a protrump catchphrase?
Lemme help you. You are generalizing stereotypes, never a smart thing to do. I do agree about this:
I'm certainly no trumpster, and personally hate how he has turned the conservative party into the "trump party." I have some conservative leaning views as well as some more liberal views.
Don't be so ready to classify people and turn it into a "us vs them" issue. We should try not to stoke the flames of division, there is more than enough of that.
It's a talking point.. stay with me.. that turned into a "catchphrase" because it's used so much. It's not to be taken literally.
Still with me or?
You cannot have a debate with a Trumper without him/her saying "democrats send money over there" in one form or another.
If you don't fall into this category, congrats! This comment isn't about you!
But no, I will as divisive as I need to with Trumpers, they are a cancer on this society that is attempting to take root in the heart of our country yet again. They should be ridiculed and weeded out, forced back into the shadows where they can nurse their wounded egos and barely.masked bigotry in solitude.
Uhg, gross... your attitude (and opinions) is ignorant and contemptible. I'm guessing you're probably a teenager.
I've seen some of your other comments so I don't really take offense to any insult you might try to throw at me. And no. Based on your other comments I'd guess I'm at least a decade older than you.
Please don't be distugested.
Damn you beat me to it
Man I haven't met someone who was distugested in a long time. You sure are pretty passionate about this!
Lol... what?
You.. misspelled disgusted.
Hahaha oh! Oops. Thank for the correction without personally attacking me.
It was obvious as hell that he wants Russia to win.
All we have to do is make him president elect! We don’t even have to inaugurate him!
You'll get all the Logan act violations you seek if you act now!
This gets me - if he's that fucking clever then he should have ended it by now. And he says he's good friends with Zelensky, how? Do they go out drinking together? They've probably spoken twice. America should be ashamed of Trump the Liar.
Americans capable of feeling shame are. Unfortunately, his base is incapable of feeling shame, so there's no effect there.
They're capable of feeling shame, just not for good reasons. Like, they can feel ashamed of thinking a trans person is hot.
Has he not done enough already for that wretched, glorified petrol station they call a country.
He is in a LOT of debt, financially and politically, to Russia. And he also is desperate to win, because if he loses he's going to jail. He'll do anything Putin wants him to
What makes you think he hasn't already been given the favor years or decades ago and how he's the one repaying it and he'll get nothing in return?
Mostly the fact that Trump never pays his debts.
Can't argue with that one lol
I have to wonder if the potential for accidentally falling out of a window goes any way into affecting the way he approaches certain debts.
No. If Trump were capable of conceptualizing losing and suffering consequences he wouldn't do half the shit he does.
Of course he does, he's a bought man.
Yea, what a POS he is for pretty much admitting this. Not that we didn’t know this already.
This stood out to me. Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
That question is awkwardly worded, why are you putin it that way?
Just not russian to any conclusions
Tsar right to know if he’s compromised.
Moscows are fat. Trump is fat. Coincidence? Probably not.
?
Moscows=most cows
Ah.
Thanks
Fun fact: at his mother's deathbed, Stalin reportedly told her that he had "become something like the Tsar". Perfectly accurate FWIW.
What is confusing to me is why would it matter to Putin if Trump lied here? The Russian mode of government is lying and deception after all.
Does he actually think that his voters want Ukraine to lose? Oh fuck, do his voters actually want Ukraine to lose?
They've been listening to the Russian trolls and bots.
And bought and paid for Tim pool
Their line isn't that Ukraine should lose, it's that America shouldn't give them money while homeless vets, Ukraine is corrupt, biden crime family, nato expansion, etc. Which coincidentally are all Russian talking points.
Those damn russians, constantly bringing up recent history like that.
Didn't Hunter get like millions of dollars from both Russian and Ukranian oligarchs? It's so cool how the kids of politicans always end up with these sweet deals- and to think Trump is claiming to be the deals guy
Oh thanks, I forgot hunter Biden.
Now go and Google what the Budapest memorandum was.
Yes, the CIA psyop'd over 70% of the country to support joining the EU, then forced yanukovitch to say "screw that we love Russia" and piss everyone off. And the totally organic resistance movement in the east that happened to have russian equipment and... Soldiers? Yeah just the people self determining or whatever.
So what about the ethnic Russians, and the rest of the non-Ukranian speakers?
There was a base of people (30% per your post) who didn't support this and when the government cracked down on resistance, city centers ended up shelled with artillery for years.
Just a shitty situation to get caught in the middle of, frankly. Did you support NATO intervention against Serbia when it used its military on a breakaway region?
Half the big right wing youtubers are getting paid by Russia.
Yes. They want Ukraine to lose.
I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).
I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won't fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there's still a theme of making it clear that you're ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward "but should we spend our money?" to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.
I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
The whole reason he tried to keep weapons from Ukraine was because he was given instructions by Putin to make Russia's planned invasion easier.
Trump being Trump, he tried to extort some political favors or of Zelenskyy first, but clearing a path for Putin was always the goal.
Putin's mum.
Yes, I think there's this one man, Trumps big idol, I think his name was Vladimir the war criminal Putin.
This needs to be very widely publicized.
It was a presidential debate. It was fairly publicized.
I think maybe they mean... Like, not washed out by the other 90 minutes of crazy shit he was saying.
Oh no doubt. I only wish she hadn't spent so much time explaining what a fucking idiot he was instead of taking about herself or her plans. He made all those talking points for her by, well, talking... It was a great beat down nonetheless, and I get it was her one time to really make a fool out of him in person, but again, he did that better than anyone ever could.
Great show overall, would watch season 2.
She walked him like a dog. Flatly stated he could be easily manipulated, and proceeded to do just that. He could not even muster the courage to make meaningful eye contact with her the entire debate. She just stared him down and dominated him. How brutally emasculating for him.
Watching it made me so hungry, going to doordash some fried kitten.
I dunno, I just read an article about that country's political debate from last night and it didn't mention this point, it was mostly discussing how angry that bloke got at the other politician and how overall it seems like it was a bad night for him and a good night for her.
The specifics were a bit overshadowed by the perceived importance of the event and it's outcome itself, I think.
I'm sure in the coming days some more details will flow out of the USA and we'll hear some discussion of specifics where they concern us, like their politician's stances on the war in Europe, I agree. I've just not seen it mentioned just yet is all.
But it's only 7am and I think the debate was in the middle of the night, so I shouldn't expect much yet haha :-D
But Kamala Harris should have poited that out and reminded everyone that Trump wouldn't answer. Then it would be her jabbing him instead of some talking head no one knows letting it pass. Missed opportunity.
It will not put off his voters. Some of them just don't care about anything international. Others admire Putin as a strongman who isn't afraid to kill his enemies and persecute minorities, a moral conservative, a self-professed Christian, an ally against democracy and a defender of the same bigotries they share.
He doesn't just need the MAGA faithful to win. I can't believe I have to keep saying this.
You're right. The hope is that they're not enough and he fails to attract anyone else.
I don't think he's gaining voters and I do think he's losing them.
It won't. Because people are hung up about the eating pets thing. Which, insane as it is might have happened.
Idk why the actual issues are swept under the rug, and the controversial takes are the focus.
I feel like when Harris said that Putin would be sitting in Kyiv, Trump didn't understand. "Why would he be in Kyiv, Putin would be at home, happier of course" because he's taking it literally like a fucking idiot.
And yes, Trump, of course Putin would be happier with you in charge when he invaded. The Biden administration gave crucial Intel in the months leading up to the invasion and military support. Harris 100% deserves props for being involved in that.
He also still refused to admit he lost four years ago, and admit any fault or regret for Jan 6th. And he showed zero remorse or awareness about the Central Park Five. Pure deflection for every single question.
He knows he can't say Russia but he doesn't want Ukraine to win so he does this.
I don't know why he can't say Russia. It's the obvious truth, his swallowers - sorry, his followers - would lap it up no matter what, and it's no more or less insane than anything else he says.
They are more apt to believe obvious lies than obvious truths.
...how many years ago was it when "facts don't care about your feelings" was their thing?
Their facts were nonsense, of course, but they at least tried. The lazy, obvious bullshit that 1/3 of the population immediately adopt as their whole identity now is genuinely depressing.
Russian Asset. Better dead than Red.
Not only this, but they rephrased the question asking if he thought it would be in America's best interest to win the war and he declined to answer again...
I found it interesting that Trump claims if he wins the election, he'll have the Russia / Ukraine conflict resolved BEFORE he even takes office. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's how I interpreted what he stated.
If that's the case, then it seems like he could choose to end the conflict at any time. Why doesn't he just end it now? Save countless lives. Minimize injuries. Prevent suffering. Save money. I'm sure that'd change some voters' minds if he did it. Might even win him the election.
Yes, this is a rhetorical question. I have no doubt that he can't actually end it without basically giving in entirely to Russia.
It is a confusing statement. I understood it to be basically that once he is guaranteed to be president, Putin will know his man on the inside will be in charge, and Putin can end the war/negotiate for favorable terms with the US as enforcer.
Trump can't end it before the election, because there's no guarantee he'll win.
Trump thinks that makes him a brilliant negotiator, instead of what he really is which is a stooge that can be played like a fiddle.
He's invoking the Iran Hostage Crisis, I think. Reagan famously cut a deal with the Ayatollah to release the American hostages on the day of his inauguration, despite Carter having nailed down a prisoner exchange months earlier.
He's full of shit. This isn't a hostage negotiation where Biden did 95% of the work for him already. This is an intractable siege spanning a third of the country's land area which has been spiraling into long range bombings of the respective civilian capitals. Trump isn't going to be able to leverage a ceasefire that's already on the table, because Zelensky isn't asking for a ceasefire, he's asking for permission to use higher capacity long range missiles to force Russian troops off the southern front.
The siren song Trump sings is that he could have prevented the '22 invasion by playing nice with Putin before tanks crossed the border. And 100%, if there had been a detente prior to the outbreak of open conflict, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Even at a concession of territory, this arguably would have been preferable to the holocaust committed across the territory to date.
But the reality is that he was just as happy to sell advanced weapons systems to Ukraine in 2018 as Biden has been in extending military aid today. If anything, Trump was more responsible for the Ukraine/Russia war going hot than Biden. And not even for particularly noble reasons (MIC $$$!!!)
Trump falsely promised Ukrainian leadership his full support in the event of a Russian retaliation, sold them a bunch of tacti-cool military surplus, and then turned around and tried to cut the same fucking deal with the Russians.
In this sense, it also invokes Reagan who was famous for sending Rumsfeld to cut arms deals with both Iran and Iraq shortly before the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War.
Promising both countries your support, goading them into conflict, and then pulling back to let them duke it out is textbook John Bolton foreign policy. And guess who was whispering in Trump's ear all through that first term in office?
That's not true, he very clearly answered that he's stronger than Superman and smarter than Batman.
He could beat Batman for sure, especially with prep time to make a concept of a plan.
Of course, he wants Russia to win, duh
Putler is betting on trump to win. If Harris wins, it's over for him.
Well, officially, Putin supports Harris, but who knows with that deranged man.
He endorsed her specifically so that Trump would say that in the debate. And he did.
And how do you, pray tell, know that?
Because I don't live under a rock.
But you do since you just guess. I quote known sources, and you pull shit out your ass.
Please explain why Putin would endorse the person who says that Ukraine should win the war over the person who won't say that.
I don't need to explain anything. Again, I'm just citing facts, and you're guessing. But honestly, how much do you think your armchair analytics are really worth? Or anyone's for that matter?
You didn't quote anything
Nobody "knows" it, but it's totally within character for both of them.
Trump is so predictable he reliably fell for Harris' obvious bait about his rally attendees etc.
It's not farfetched to assume Putin, who is actually quite skilled in the art of manipulating people, would attempt to use Trump as a pawn in this manner.
Yeah well see therein lies the problem. There is a difference between knowing and not knowing, something that seems to matter next to nothing to people anymore
Let's say a guy says he likes puppies, but then pays a pile of cash so some people will run a puppy-kicking machine. Would you say he likes puppies or not?
Here's a guy who believes things that come out of Putin's mouth, over his own eyes and his own government.
Remind me, which side just got busted for being literally paid by Russia to post pro-russian propaganda about the election and Ukraine? Wasn't that conservatives? If Putin wants Kamala, why is Russia paying American conservative influencers millions of dollars to sway voters away from her?
Lmao I don't really give a damn. I just quoted Putins' own words, make that what you will and the fact is he supports Harris apparently.
I know you quoted Putin's own words, that was my whole point lol. He said those words in response to the US GOVERNMENT saying that he is paying conservative influencers to influence the US election.
So, which source do you believe, Putin, or the US government? Go on
I dont really trust, either to be honest. What has the US government said on the matter?
If you're just going to quote people and accept it as fact, I have the metal scrapping rights for the Eiffel tower for sale and I'm willing to do so for cheap.
Better than armchair conjecture, tbh.
That's the thing you can't trust putins own words lmao
That's because officially Putin knows who he supports has negative connotations for the electorate.
Whoever Putin visibly puts his weight behind is the opposite of who he wants to win.
It's also so the MAGA rubes (who mostly secretly root for Putin) can say "See Trump don't balong ta no won cause Pootin was for the Kamunist!"
He of course supports Trump, he just likes to mess around Western politics
So much conservative talking points about Kamala is pro-genocide with no evidence.
Like motherfucker, your main boy has zero plans and has a history of flying by the seat of his pants and having Americans killed.
I'm not a conservative and everything you said about Trump is correct.
But Kamala is pro genocide here's the evidence: https://lemmy.ml/post/19744450
Nothing will fundamentally change
Reminder that Zelenskyy basically called Trump's bluff on his plan, encouraging him to share it now.
It's hardly worthy of being called a bluff.
Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.
It would be great if we stopped spending money on foreign wars, but why can't the democrats adopt an anti-war position rather than trying to out-warmonger the republicans?
Genius plan.
You want the warmongering to stop? Then get on Telegram and starting telling that to Russians. Tell Putin.
Putin sucks but he's no Hitler.
Also I can't even get Putin to comp my rent why do you think he would listen to me?
Yes he is. He's pretty much Hitler in every way. What, are you waiting for 1940s Hitler and literal gas chambers to pop up until the dots become connected?
Seems pretty Hitler-like to me. You're right, Hitler didn't listen to calls for him to step down either.
You seem like you've got it all figured out
No, not all; just more so than you.
If a country (Russia) has decided it wants to be aggressive, then there are really only two ways to prevent a war with them:
Usually, number 1 is the only feasible way for a country without outright opening up hostilities. However, Russia has given the world an opportunity, by attacking Ukraine, to enact number 2 relatively risk-free.
I fully believe that if Russia is given leeway then they'd just continue on. Appeasement, as World War 2 has shown, does not work with personalities like that. By supporting Ukraine in this conflict, number 2 can be accomplished.
And this war can be stopped, today! By Russia withdrawing from Ukraine. So please, aim your ire at Putin who started and stubbornly keeps this war going.
I would expect nothing less from a .de domain 😬
Thank you for that insightful rebuttal.
Sorry I just get a bit triggered when I hear Germans talking about needing to increase their strength due to aggressive outside threats causing internal economic strife.
Smartest lemmy.ml user
It's the concept of a plan. Wat a weird concept.
Nice avatar, laughing man
That's why he's nothing more than vatnik kompromat.
Hes avoiding turning off potential voters just like a typical politician
Putin can't vote.
He votes in the same way businesses vote. Bankrolling politicians.
He does, he votes early and often.
I thought Americans (at least the ones who watch MSNBC) all agreed he voted in the 2016 election
All those Republican Senators love MSNBC.
You know, there's good people on both sides. People with a lot of value and good ideas. It reminds me of my businesses, so many good people. There's a lot of good people in this world. You know what else is good? Watermelon. It's a melon.... Made... From water. How incredible. It's delicious. How do they do that?
Translation: He wants Russia to win the War and for America to be signed over to the Kremlin, but he knows he can't say that aloud
Yeah that sounds about right
Same reason you don't see tankies in this thread.
The one thing he can't obvious lie about directly.
He has said several times before that he would end the ruzzian occupation by making a deal with them. Most definitely a loser's deal where Ukraine would give up land.
Everyone else with half a brain cell left in our brain and with some heart, we think ruzzians should get the fuck out and pay for all the damage and murdering. That's the negotiation that needs to happen. And you see, am just a regular person with a low IQ. I'm sure Harrys will do way better. And I'm sure any person could probably do better at least at deciding if ruzzia is doing something bad.
::: spoiler Semafor - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Semafor:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.semafor.com/article/09/10/2024/trump-refuses-to-say-if-he-wants-ukraine-to-win-the-war ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Major update: politician acts like a politician.
What does "win" even mean? NATO starting World War 3? Well, they're getting there.
You mean Russia starting the conflict that might turn into WW III two years ago?
The conflict started more than a decade ago. Currently it's a proxy war mostly limited to the territory of Ukraine and Russia. Other countries are in the pipeline.
Oh we know. If Russia wins, Poland is next. Russia salami slicing started in 2014 with its first annexation of part of Ukrainian.
The next target after Russia loses against NATO will be China actually. And then Iran, North Korea. But you'll get a total nuclear exchange well before, so it's academical.
So likely next proxy is Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Belorus. Poland is also a possibility, but not at first. Unless Belorus, but then we're at tactical nukes stage already.
Russia was the aggressor here. Ukraines wanted to go towards the west for a better life and protection from being further invaded by Russia. Putin is of the school of thought that Ukraine isn't real. But it is the people of Ukraine who decide that.
This war started more than a decade ago. Russian Federation only became a party some two years ago.
This was the start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
Da, comrade!
Vatniks gonna vatnik.
Fuck you
What'd I miss?
Trolling
2 hours old account. Hey Russians, try harder.
Fuck is wrong with you?
Me and my popcorn wanna know what this guy's deleted comments said
Just came to agree, fuck Ukraine. All these drones have no real knowledge of that situation literally on the other side of the planet.
Ok? The US has invaded more countries than I care to find a list of. These invasions were supported by a majority here and believed to be justified. We invaded countries on the opposite side of the world. Russia invaded their neighbors, basically their extended family, and we're supposed to get involved and support one side or the other? The only reason it's a big issue is because it's pushed my certain political and powerful people. I'm willing to bet 50% of the money "sent to Ukraine" just ends up in the pockets of politicians and leeches here.
You all need to stop claiming "whataboutism." It is called a comparison, and if you supported it or not, it was a good comparison.
Comparing isn't "deflecting." The fact that you also compared how you also didn't support the US invasions to the Russia invasion kind of proves it was a fair and relevant comparison. YOU should consider calling some things "whataboutism"s is sometimes "deflecting".
Comparing for what reason?
That's just Whataboutism, you know it
Basically most of it ends in the hands of the military industrial complex.
It's sad to see that the libs are just as post-truth as the magats are. The doublethink is honestly astounding. Not only is the US and NATO good (except for gaza) but it's also evil to invade other countries that pose a threat to national security (unless the US does it). Everything Putin says is a lie and he's Hitler and will always attack if we let him. Nato is completely harmless and a NATO armed Ukraine never was a danger to Russia except now when they managed to hold their own for so long and now shoot back into Russia after being so well armed by NATO. Why would the Russians not like NATO? Russians are Orcs because they are Nazis, except Nazis aren't Nazi's if they are Ukrainians. There was never any interference with e.g. the Euromaidan coup except we welcomed Ukraine into NATO and the EU with open arms and the CIA works excellent together with Ukraine intelligence services. Oppression is bad but Slava Ukraina and banning Russian is fine. Anyone who wants piece is a warmonger and Putin apologist. We are finally the good guys again! Stop the whataboutism of the entire history of US meddling and coups and illegal wars!
The historical facts are pretty clear how this conflict came about and why. It was a miscalculation - They didn't think Russias economy could support so much arms manufacturing. They also thought China wouldn't back Russia. But of course they did because they know they are next lol. There have been like 40 meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping and this war has brought them together. They are expanding BRICS and making new connection with the global south.
Of course this is still a win-win for the US empire and the oligarchs however this ends. They won't let it escalate to nuclear war and the wealth transfers are massive. The only losers are the taxpayers and the Ukrainians and Russians.
Lets not talk about the insane level of greenhouse gases emitted because of this war.
Love it! Thank you for that. I have been corrected and concede. I mean damn, that was well-informed.
Thanks, I was rather agreeing with you. And the whole thing is murky with lots of disinformation and feints on both sides. You kinda have to thread a thin line between US empire, liberal, socialist and Russian propaganda to find anything. My main gripe is that the narrative on the lib side is so obviously false and constructed in a way that makes demanding diplomatic solutions impossible. It's maddening!
Here is an interview with an Pascal Lottaz an "Ukrainian Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies" who was arrested and Amnesty International helped to get asylum in Finnland. His youtube channel features discussions with academics about current topics.
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn't get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn't matter how many die or whether there's anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they'd asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she's willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who's consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Hmmm... I'm a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
Don't you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it's that easy, then I definitely don't think people should be going out and dying over it, there's just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That's a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won't.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you'll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what's your timetable then?
It's a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won't listen, I guess.
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the 'good' folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it's not our blood to commit, it's the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it's their skin in the game, not our forces. It's their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to 'a couple of provinces' is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that's what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn't claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually "pro-war". In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being "pro-war".
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it's easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn't the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn't significant "gray area" to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren't useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually "caving" to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the "let the dictator win without resistance" strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here's another example of "letting the dictator win without resistance." The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30's and the situation now, and even then it's only one example, and one that's vastly overused. And the reason that it's overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. "If we don't beat them now, they'll keep coming forever." All you have to do is paint the people you're fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it's intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So "appeasement" worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more "gray area" so it's hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn't actually have a horse in the race doesn't apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don't have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they'd receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don't know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that's acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn't been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it's all in Russia's favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it's lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that's not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup'ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90's? Hey, wait a minute...
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that's how it's going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren't happening.
Well you've decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don't have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
I made a guess, if I'm wrong, explain it to me.
You didn't make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don't try to weasel out of it now. You're clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
I've never read such dumb bullshit in my life... until I found your comments...
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
And Kamala refused to say whether babies can be aborted at 9 months. Politicians being politicians.
EDIT: She didn’t respond to the Chinese tariffs question either. Stop glorifying politicians. None of them are being straight with you, because they’re playing the fence for votes. You can admit that politicians are bad AND you can still support and vote for them.
That's an amazingly stupid take from someone who apparently didn't watch the debate.
Trump claimed that babies were being aborted at 9 months and after they were born. This is a lie he repeats over and over at rallies that you apparently do watch. The moderators made it clear that that was illegal in all 50 states.
Why would Harris need to debunk something insanely stupid that the moderators already debunked?
Trump kept saying abortion after 9 months, they put the baby aside and decide it's fate. They execute the baby. And the debate just kept going on.. how in hell can the debate just keep going on after that?
Sane response would be to "wait what?!" Stop everything wtf are you talking about?
Abortions after birth?
Yeah that's called murdering an infant.
Pls, provide the sources you obviously have on this.
We're in a thread that's discussing the former president of the US actually claiming shit like this, so no, there's really nothing you could say that would "make it obvious".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
At the rate we're going, it's always too soon.
The moderator answered that, because it was a moronic question to ask.
Was that a legit question?
The answer seems kinda obvious.
Because it's not a thing.
An abortion at 9 months is to remove a dead baby from the whomb (leaving it in there kills the mother too). Babies die in utero.. it's horrible but happens.
Same as with babies that are born with previously undiagnosed developmental or birth defects that turn out not to be viable.. it's horrible but it happens.
Keep messing with medical care for political reasons and more mothers and babies will die..
Noone is removing a viable baby and then killing it. But since every accusation is a confession, I'm now worried about republicans.
She rolled her eyes at the claim. That was enough. Only idiots who were going to vote for Trump anyway believe that.
The only one vying for babies to be abortable at 9 months is this god fellow in the form of miscarriages.