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 ....
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.
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.
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...
Only about 18% of which is actually owned by Russia. The rest is money that happened to be in transit between private persons at an unfortunate time. Do we really think it's fair that a lady who happened to be selling her house at exactly the time the war started... should have that money donated to Ukraine's war effort?
Absolutely, she shouls pay! Also EU should suspend(or tax 100%) pensions and all social benefits to sponsor the war! If that is not enough, confiscate private companies and private properties!
I was saying that for years, since the war started! People thought it is some kind of joke. But that was the only way to win!
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.
Look we're all grateful for the Americans that do care about The Alliance but we've seen the political trends in America and it looks bad. You can't elect Trump twice and say it doesn't represent America. Trump's politics isn't going away. The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. Until they do or Trump makes massive blunders we don't have a hope that the old America is coming back.
When people choose not to have their vote represented, for whatever reason, when the outcome was so clear in advance, then there is practically, legally, morally and philosophically no distinction between not voting and voting for Trump.
We (Americans) can’t be relied on. Yeah most Americans are still supportive of Europe but our political system produces whipsaw foreign policy. The end result of all this is America is weakened on the global stage as our allies lose faith in us and start working around us. Why should Europeans boycott China, sanction Iran, support Israel, isolate Cuba, intervene in another Iraq? These are American priorities, not European ones.
> 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.
American hegemony happened by chance, and the dollar just won the reserve currency lottery?
Granted, not every war was a net win but that war machine is uniquely expensive and it may be sacrifice the public is willing to pay. But it probably wouldn't hurt to see how contemporary books on history differs from propaganda.
This is simply not the case.
There US has very successfully used it’s military to enjoy the position of absolute top dog in the world, but a major part of why they could do that was that the US has made very strong allies in the whole rest of the western world who have never, until now, seen any reason to try to compete with the US in this regard.
A well placed network of foreign aid has also generated influence in other parts of the world.
The United States has now irrevocably destroyed this position.
There will be enough time for the Trump Family and Elon to make out like the bandits they are, but the US position long term is diminished.
The last time the US had an unambiguous win by fighting was 70 years ago when they got involved in a fight very late.
No, it was in 1999. A short aerial bombing campaign that lasted less than 3 months and cost less than 600 lives ended a decade of wars in former Yugoslavia that had killed 140 000 people and made millions refugees. What an incredibly small price to pay for peace.
Ukraine needs the same kind of support, but instead, they got misguided "de-escalation" that only boxed Ukraine in and gave the initiative to Russia. By knowing that the US would force Ukraine to throttle back every time the Russians made a large misstep, Russia was encouraged to keep escalating without the fear of triggering an overwhelming response.
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.
Noone in Europe knows these are loans. Everyone assumes the money is gone. Politicians don’t talk about loans, they talk about giving money to Ukraine.
Loans are the way to do it because of the way most European budgets work. But you can’t call them regular loans in good faith, and no politician in Europe does so. The language towards the public is that Europe is giving money.
No one will bother about those loans when a Ukrainian victory will give the EU access to at least the Ukrainian market if not also the market of a new democratic Russia. Please do some long-term thinking on this.
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.
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]
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.
What did we replace "legacy" ATACMS with we could use in a war today? PrSM?
In November 2023, the Army delivered the first four Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) as an early operational capability (EOC). The Army shot two PrSM EOC missiles at a maritime target in June 2024. Between November 2023 and August 2024, the Army executed three production qualification test (PQT) events. The Army intends to complete a limited user test (LUT) with the fifth PQT test event in 1QFY25 and the remaining four planned PQT test events by 3QFY25.
There is no proper replacement for ATACMS yet. At the projected rate of production for the new replacement missile, a years worth would last about a couple weeks of usage in a serious conflict. ATACMS are still 100% valuable to the US.
> A total of 110 PrSMs are expected to be procured in fiscal 2024 and 190 in fiscal 2025, Inside Defense wrote, citing the Department of Defense documents.
ATACMS... The ones Biden reluctantly donated after Ukraine begged for them because they can strike deeper behind the frontlines and inside Russian territory? They may be an older platform but they appear to be highly desirable and still brought out for juicy targets.
It was 31 M1s donated, last time I looked. And they survived a helluva lot longer against the droneless Iraqi Army, which helps explain the low number. A $500 drone can ignite a $5M tank. Drones have changed the calculus of tank warfare.
Maybe the AT4 and NLAW didn't have the same effectiveness of Javelin? The Javelin has had a pretty good PR campaign with it's point and destroy videos.
Not to mention that maintaining M1s must be a nightmare.
The Ukrainians seem to prefer the Bushmasters. This kind of makes sense, given it seems a lot of what Ukraine is doing is guerrilla warfare then equipment that is easily serviceable likely is more useful.
"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?"
US never wanted to fight Russia directly as it would mean nuclear escalation.
US needs somewhat strong Russia as a scarecrow for Europe and everyone else in the world, so that people would join NATO and pay 4% of GDP to the American military industrial complex: Lockheed Raytheon and friends.
The goal is to scare people and force them to shell out dough for overpriced US weapons.
If Russia becomes too weak, there are two risks:
1. Nuclear/Biowarfare proliferation due to instability inside RU
2. Europe won't spend a dime procuring US weapons because Russia would not be a threat anymore
3. China can increase influence in Russia
so American goal is to keep somewhat stable Russia and force EU to shell dough on US weapons. Thats the racket, everything else is a distraction
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.
Plenty of european countries have given both stockpiles and modern weapons.
As an example sweden has given Strv-122, CV90, Archer, Saab 340 AEW&C 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.
This has very long term repercussions for the US. No-one is making the mistake of using a US jet engine in their design again and getting export controls because of that. Already plans are evaluated for switching to an upgraded Volvo RM12 or something from Rolls-Royce.
The same scenes must be playing out in various industries across Europe and the rest of the world. Such wheels turn very slowly, but they now turn away from the US defense industry.
Certainly a world where NATO countries spend <2% of their budget on defence but the shiny new weaponry all comes from US contractors doesn't seem obviously more helpful than one where they're targeting 3% spend but making a point of building domestic industries or buying from pan-European projects.
Plenty of NATO members already build and buy from non-US sources. France basically made it a principle because of their historic fence-sitting NATO policy, Sweden mostly builds its own (but licenses parts from US/UK like fighter engines), other countries are buying artillery or tanks from south korea, etc. The US itself buys anti-tank weapons and riverine patrol boats from sweden, dutch rifles, german handguns and much more.
"but the shiny new weaponry all comes from US contractors" is not true.
It is true that the US has spent far more on it's military and made it far more global than any other country. It is also true that the US acted as a guarantor for west Europes security for most of the last 80 years and that should not be understated. That era seems to have come to an end.
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.
The EU froze over 200 billion Euros from Russian assets. Russia will never see that money again. Once Putin is defeated Ukraine's debt will be paid with that.
Also, please do think long-term: A victory for Ukraine and a second try for democracy in Russia will mean that the EU will regain huge markets right at its doorstep that need rebuilding and in the case of Russia some diversification would be sensible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is absolutely a possibility, but not a certainty, and a very dangerous gamble to make. That said, Europe probably does need its own nuclear deterrent and its own anti-ballistic missile defense.
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.
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
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.
My point is that the Russian people have a capacity for self-sacrifice that shouldn't be underestimated, especially when their (perceived) sovereignty is threatened.
During WW2, for example, the Soviets lost a total of 20-27 million dead. Only China, a country almost three times as populous, came close at 15-20 million.
The Soviet Union lost 20m+ dead because they faced an existential threat from an enemy that intentionally massacred multiple millions of them[1]
The situation isn't quite that bad in either Russia or Ukraine which was also one of the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. But it's certainly closer in Ukraine, even if most Russians hold an irrational level of enthusiasm for the war
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.
I guess it shows how critical is technology that keeps the human away from harms reach. Drones are a great example of that, especially how costly/hard it is to train a jet pilot.
With (almost) fully autonomous weapons and systems it comes down to simply who has the better economy and production lines.
They don't even have enough 155 shells, long range drones, body armour, training facilities, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missiles, tanks, howitsers. The list goes on and on. It's exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
They had to develop their own long range drones instead of getting off-the-shelf stuff. Germany blocked Taurus, Tomahawks were a no-go.
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.
"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.
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.
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..
Trump is merely another step in the bar being lowered. And make no mistake, it can go lower.
The Western acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for a good deal is what got us here. It's not just the US; it's Europe too. Putin did what he did because he knew that Europe was willing to exchange the end of Russian subordination to the post-Cold War world order for cheap gas. Middle Eastern countries have seen their awful human rights records punished by the granting of a World Cup by FIFA and European tourism to Dubai. Both China and Russia were made Olympic hosts in the last 20 years. Russia hosted a World Cup in 2018, four years after the invasion of Crimea and ten years after its invasion of Georgia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
This isn't a credible reason to wed yourself to Russian gas and decommission the plants Germany already had ruining. Despite three years of bombing the nuclear plants in Ukraine have not been (properly) hit.
Terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations can be dealt with via the standard security services.
German aversion to a functional army and nuclear energy has had consequences for the country and the EU.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I fully understand this sentiment. After all, combined more than $6tn (!) have been spent on the rather ill-advised engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It's unfortunate that the US invested so much in these affairs that there is little capacity or willingness left now when it matters.
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.)
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.
Not really sure I care if the neighbors across the water think we look weak just because we don’t want to defend them because they don’t want to be strong.
And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak…
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.
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.
America looks weak because it has just lost the cold war. All the effort spent since 1945 to counter authoritarian superpowers have been thrown in the bin. Instead it turned into one itself. It is pathetic.
Pathetic is to have an authoritarian superpower on the same continent as you for 80 years and still opting to rely on a superpower an ocean away to be the primary defender of your interests.
Some of the countries in Europe to take a cue from Finland and not outsource its defense.
> 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.
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.
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.
But cleaning can't be done Musk's way. The whole system is kinda stable because everything is linked together. To start from scratch without anything in the meantime is just suicide.
It's like if a scientist what not giving food to an animal for a month to test if really food is needed. Well, he will conclude that food was needed, but now the animal is dead.
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".
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.
Perhaps saying "Russia made the US lose the cold war" would be more accurate than saying "Russia won".
From a lost position, Russia managed to make the US resign from the game.
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.
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.
These three countries have been a bit unstable politically during the last couple of years. This did not help. At least they are going in the same direction and not shooting each other’s foot.
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
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.
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.
So what is your actual preference? That Russia simply be allowed to invade and take over Ukraine "because Ukraine was pretty damn corrupt anyway" ? What does that accomplish?
The point isn't to pick the "best democracy" as if it were a beauty pageant. It was to oppose unilateral military invasion as an instrument of national policy, which is bad regardless of the form of government of the victim.
Ukraine might have been corrupt, but it was a peaceful neighbor and evolving in the right directions. Russia is (literally) throwing bombs around, cutting internet cables, and generally being a terrorist asshole. And at some point, yes, an emboldened Putin will decide to invade a "good democracy". It's happened before.
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 naïveté.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca...
> (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
"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.
I think the critical question is what would the allies do (especially the ones with nuclear weapons) if Russia actually used one. There's a lot of treaties, words spoken and on paper but nobody really knows how people would react to the idea of partaking in a nuclear war.
If they dropped a nuke on e.g. Lithuania would the French do the same knowing that retaliation would come that could wipe out most of their people and country off the map? Would any country do that for someone else?
> 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.
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.
"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.
> 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.
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?
In the US he needs to convince one administration (and realistically, one guy). The EU is 27 governments, each one with way smaller budgets than the US.
Anyway, you might have missed it, but Zelensky is also regularly asking for help in Paris, Brussels, London, and Berlin.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
^ 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.)
The Ukraine pre-invasion was and is a well-documented hotbed of extremely problematic Nazism (think pre WW II type stuff, it is really heinous). It is not so surprising countries weren't that excited to assist them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
We have powerful weapons now. Manpower is not the (most) limiting factor. If the Ukraine had 10 times its current long range drone production, the Russians would start whining about peace deals.
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.
Ukraine has been loosing a three-day-special operation for three years.
Russia's refinery's are getting hit and all that crude oil is worthless with a refinery. In the case of the campaign again Nazi Germany's refineries funny enough it's the allies who didn't think it as critical as the Nazis did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II#O...
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.
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!
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.
Which military experts? If you listen to actually knowledgeable people like Kofman it's been known forever that 2024 would be (and as we now are seeing from Russia being pushed back) Russia's peak. Russia is out of equipment and is starting to get similar problems with manpower. In the meantime Europe's investments are starting to pay off and allow Ukraine to pull ahead in 2025.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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!
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.
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
There are almost no boys left in senior classes of Ukrainian schools. This was reported by the publication "Strana.ua" on the Telegram channel with reference to blogger Alena Yakhno.
As the blogger said, the 17-year-old son of her friend studies in Kiev , but all his classmates have left. "Only girls are left in the class. There will be no moral. It's just a fact," she wrote.
The publication recalled that upon reaching the age of 18, young people from Ukraine are no longer allowed to go abroad. In addition, the report notes, information about Ukrainian schoolchildren aged 16-17 leaving Ukraine en masse has appeared before.
Earlier, the Verkhovna Rada reported on hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who left the country before the start of the school year. According to MP Nina Yuzhina, about 300 thousand students, mostly high school students, left Ukraine in July and August. In addition, due to the departure of young people, 2,114 schools have been closed in Ukraine over the past four years.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
In an ideal world I'd agree with you, but the world is unfortunately very far removed from that. You don't have to agree with everything to look for common ground in other areas. Support the good, criticize the bad.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This does not account for what can happen in Russia itself. There's this widespread belief that Russia is stable, no matter what.
If that were true, why would Putin take such extreme care for the elites in Moscow and St Petersburg? What is he afraid of? What don't need to know exactly what, but we can conclude he probably has a good reason.
Russia is not stable. The economy is creaking. Unsound, favourable loans are being made to corrupt companies who pocket as much cash as they dare while they deliver as little they can, Soviet style. Something is gonna give eventually, probably to the sound of drones over Moscow becoming the new normal.
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.
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.
It's a weird world that objecting to genocide makes you an antisemite now.
Don't support Netanyahu's weaponization of the word antisemite. It endangers Jews everywhere, and does not help Israel. It only helps Netanyahu silence his critics.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No. Not at all. There will come a point when Russia will stop the war because either Russia is completely exhausted and on the verge of collapse, or Putin is dead or removed from power. And chances are those two will go together.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
True. Non-proliferation is dead, killed three years ago. Only when Ukraine gets Russia to the point of a Compiègne 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Traditionally the US turned from ally to bully in a predictable manner though. Ally with the Soviet Union, expect hostility, even if your previous right-leaning government had been their best buddies. Invade another country the US also regarded as a regional ally and oil supplier and you might not last long.
The switch to verbally attacking Ukraine and the rest of Europe whilst fellating Putin is an altogether different one, and one much more damaging to US soft power than its past belligerence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm assuming that was sarcasm :) Since Trump and his followers seem to save that type of posturing for Canada. But I guess he's just trolling to own the libs, like a president does...
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.
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.
I saw on russian TV how they pretty much said "yea, trump may be an ally of ours now and do what we want but we must remember how they turned on ukraine and that they might turn on us"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.
Thinking long and hard apparently is all the EU is capable of.
Trump's first term should have been more than enough to make the EU come to their senses. Now, we have tethered caps and the AI Act, but the EU still has no coherent vision or just even the slightest idea of how to move the continent forward instead of keeping it in the past.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
I suspect The Trump camp realise a peace deal acceptable to Ukraine isn’t viable. Trump having promised one would be easy means he needs an excuse.
Manufacturing a split with Zelensky gives them that excuse. Now they can turn off the tap of support to Ukraine, forcing them to capitulate, and blame Zelensky.
Meanwhile they can make a deal with Putin to split Ukraine between them. Putin gets East Ukraine, the USA gets the mineral wealth of West Ukraine. It’s win-win.
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.
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.
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.
Why a separate alliance? In 2015, only 5 nations meet the 2% funding requirement for NATO, with all previous US administrations asking for increases. That's concrete evidence of disinterest in the concept or intentional reliance on the US. Only recently, with threats of the US pulling out of NATO, have the numbers improved.
If the US scaled back the 2%, and was less involved, I would think Europe would be in a better position than a brand new alliance.
I understand your point about NATO's historical funding issues, but this isn't just about money - it's about aligning with shared democratic values and international accountability.
The 2% GDP threshold has indeed been a persistent issue, but European nations have substantially increased defense spending since 2022. The proposed alliance would be fundamentally different from NATO in two key ways:
1. It would prioritize democratic values and rule of law accountability (ICC membership) over simply being anti-Russia
2. It would develop true strategic autonomy through indigenous defense production
NATO remains structurally dominated by US interests and equipment with their potential "kill switches." Recent events demonstrate why European security can't be outsourced to powers with potentially divergent interests.
The existing industrial and technological capabilities across Europe are more than sufficient to create a credible deterrent force when properly coordinated. This isn't about creating something from scratch, but realigning existing resources toward greater sovereignty.
Democracy and rule of law aren't just ideals - they're strategic assets worth defending with our own means.
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.
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.
Europe can defend itself against Russia just fine. Maybe it will be a bit poorer, as it has to spend more money on defense, but it can do that. The bigger threat is that European countries start fighting each other again. That could happen in a few decades, if Eurosceptic parties become too popular.
On the other hand, Europe does not care about China. It has no interests in the Pacific. In the absence of mutually beneficial alliances with powers that oppose China, Europe would rather see China as a (somewhat unpleasant) trading partner than an adversary. If China is not a threat and the US is not an ally, it doesn't matter much which of them is the dominant power in the Pacific.
Russia started this war. The US abandoning their closest allies against their historical main antagonist results in losing the status of hegemon, and the economic and geostrategic benefits that entailed.
Russia is winning the cold war, 35 years after it "ended".
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You implied the US entered WW2 to help out the European allies and thus they still owe you. But as the person you're responding to pointed out, you entered it of your own accord, pursuing your own interests.
So, no, we're not going to, in your own words, "compare them to WW1 and WW2 and see if we owe you any money".
Moreover, the US were paid back for any weapons or resources you supplied.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am trying to express in good faith, I have found the Left to be generally less effective in dealing with grassroots criticism (it's seen as too populist). Trump will flip on an issue due to pressure from the frog guys. The Left are more dogmatic from top intellectuals, don't really listen to the base. Huge issue in the last elxn. Fixable though imo.
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.
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
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.
It isn't dumb so much as desperate. Their preference is to supply troops with trucks, but they have lost a huge number of trucks and use many of those remaining as troop transports on the front line which also speaks of desperation.
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.
"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…
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.
Literally not the definition of a dictatorship. Elections alone do not guarantee a government not run by a dictator. Not having elections during wartime doesn't mean a dictator is in charge. There is still a parliament.
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.
The US just fought a 20 year war and shed quite a bit of blood and treasure. It also appears the US military has been "in country" in Ukraine under special non-uniformed deployments (read "on loan officially as mercenaries"). When was the last war fought by a Western European "power"? Europe fights, if at all, wearing blue helmets, or sometimes fighting "from the rear" behind US military might.
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
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.
Ukraine is a buffer state to constrain Russia's westward ambitions. Think of it as an unfortunate flat road connecting Asia and Europe, ideal for military movement (especially Russian tank warfare). It is seen as a linchpin or "heartland" of Eurasia. Unfortunately, there is no strategic option to let Russia dominate it while maintaining US global hegemony. Whether that's "right" or not, it's the consensus opinion in the American foreign policy apparatus. The hope is that it can be Europe's responsibility and the US can "pivot to China."
> 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.
"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.
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.
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".
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
They increased their defense spending because of Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. It didn't have anything to do with US bullying. The biden administration certainly wasn't going around bullying Europe between 2021 and 2024.
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).
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
- 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
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.
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.
> They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation.
The Trump-gang seems to underestimate everyone and everything. I still don't know whether they mean all this excessive behavior for real, or if this is an elusive ploy to divert from something else. Trumps seems to operate by selling big to gain small, but I can't really understand yet what his real long-term goal seems.
But at this point it seems other politicians around the world have got an understanding of him and his behavior and started playing along. I'm curious if Zelenskiy did the same, he certainly gained more from this than if he had been avoided it from the beginning.
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.
> 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."
I honestly don't think there's anything Trump could do to lose the support of his MAGA base. There have been so many times when I've said "surely they'll see what he is now" only to be mistaken. It's truly a cult.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Oh wow, makes sense that the video was clipped. The first video I clicked had the entire segment so I guess I got lucky.
I can understand his frustration as well. But, he's a leader at war and lives of his men depend on his actions. The moment is much much bigger than him.
Remember that Z has to answer to the people of Ukraine. People who have been dying in defense of their borders -- and a volunteer army, not conscripts, mind you.
He wanted/needed American aid, but there was no way he could just go in there and kiss the ring, while being slandered as the aggressor and letting Putin off the hook. There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
IMO it’s not a toss up, it’s just dishonesty. After a certain point we have to call a spade a spade.
Hell, even Trump supporters know it. Half the reason I’ve heard for that vote is that they know, and are relying on, Trump lying about various things.
Why vote for someone you know to be a liar? Not sure, but I did learn that non-Trump supporters generally take him much more at his word than Trump supporters.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
"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.
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!
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.
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.
I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source.
Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
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
In the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o), at 38:15 you can see the press ask a question that Trump (and then Vance) are responding to, directly prior to where your video begins.
Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all.
Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.
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.
I really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue.
The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.
It isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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. 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.
1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits.
Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.
Where can one reliably learn about rare earths in the supply chain, refining abilities, what’s actually important for which tech, etc? I feel like I read very different views on this stuff all the time at different levels of granularity.
You're right, but for Trump, there doesn't have to be an actual deal, there just has to be the _appearance_ of a deal. He just needs to be able to repeat that $500 billion number -- it doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not or will ever happen or not. It's like Mexico paying for the wall.
> 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.
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.
> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots
They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia
I was thinking about this recently, and wondering the EU will start moving away from the USD, further weakening the global strength of USD and America. They are already dealing with BRIC, and the potential of crypto (likely Bitcoin) to remove any single currency as providing power to any country.
The US has benefitted hugely by being the reserve currency, but that strength is also a weakness that can be used against them, but only if the other countries collaborate, which the EU is most capable of.
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
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.
Also, 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). It seems weird from a global policy perspective but on brand if you're just an asshole. Either way, truly an embarrassing day to be an American.
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.
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.
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.
The moderate left (I.e almost all of the left in positions of power) don’t have answers. But, the rest of the left does. The thing is they’re wildly unpopular.
For example, we all know, left and right, that the healthcare system in the US is broken. End of, no debate. It’s broken. But, even the slightest hint of a reasonable single payer system like the rest of the west is met with immediate and severe backlash.
We’re at a place where we’re not even willing to humor, let alone try, any solutions. The conservative approach is “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”, but the left is really not far off from that either.
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.
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... ?
The thing that I find strange about it is that it's being pursued actively, from the inside, as opposed to it being forced on them by an stringer outside force (ie. China). The US has chosen to retract from it's global power and influence.
Mind-blowing, except, kinda-sorta, for the fact that the effort is helmed by a (short-term thinking) businessman rather than a seasoned politician with familiarity with, or even the ability to consider, long term consequences of actions and decisions and the interplay of other countries and their leaders.
Nearly every decision made since the late seventies has been with the intention of making the most money in the shortest amount of time. Not just in government. In everyday people’s lives, in companies.
And it always fails long term. We lose so, so much and then we just ignore it and do it again. We’re getting to a point where we don’t even remember where we started.
This has been a long time coming, IMO. You can only be selfish for so long before you implode. If everyone is selfish, you’re living on borrowed time.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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:
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"?
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.
Whoa—swipes like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please don't post any more of this. Your comment would have been just fine without it. (Well, that and the "little baby bitches".)
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, that would be good. I don't want to ban you and we've had to ask you this before.
I appreciate the response! However I think I might not have expressed the point clearly enough. The issue isn't profanity—the issue is crossing into pejoratives and name calling. When you make transformations like these:
I have invested considerable personal resources into fighting for democracy in my country and ended up having to flee leaving behind a rather comfortable life. The United States has always been an inspiration despite its well-known flaws.
Watching this situation unfold is very disturbing. And especially disheartening is the behavior of Republican representatives. A mere month ago these same people were Ukraine's best friends and world's dictators' most hawkish enemies and suddenly they are all parroting a completely opposite narrative. I mean, I can understand electing a pathalogical liar. Happened in my country as well. But turns out others were lying too? Suddenly turns out there's no commitment to values, but only a commitment to one man? If this can happen so easily in a 250 years old democracy, is democracy even worth fighting for? Is the Ukrainians' sacrifice worth it?
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.
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.
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.
Whether we like it or not, politics pervades everything. Attempting to keep certain forums sanitized and "apolitical" while a regime shift is occurring and people's civil liberties face very real threats is to live in an amoral and ahistorical fashion.
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.
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.
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.
When you try to predict dictators' behavior usong geopolitical arguments, you make the same mistake as the people who didn't believe in the Russian invasion into Ukraine.
It's the internal politics that pushes dictators to attack. And China currently follows the Russia's curve exactly there.
> The risk of China taking Taiwan by force, unprovoked, in the near future is vastly overblown, in my opinion.
I don't share this view. China needs only a couple more (2-3) carriers and to arm enough H-6K's with anti-ship missiles to keep US capital ships at bay and they'll have all the tools they need to blockade and conquer Taiwan, perhaps without firing a shot. All of that will be in place in only a couple years; probably before Trump's term ends.
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.
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
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
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.
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":
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.
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.
Ukraine just recently got at parity in artillery with russia, which is why they are pushing this ceasefire and this is why Zelenskyy is walking away from it just like that.
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.
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.
Fully agree. Ukraine should be given the means to defend itself on equal footing. No nation, regardless of size or power, should operate under the assumption that it can violate another country's sovereignty without consequences.
It's not warmongering to allow a country that has been invaded to determine how and how long they defend their country and which approaches they take towards peace.
Is it possible that you haven't been raised in a free democratic country? That would explain your patronizing attitude towards elected governments and other countries. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. It's really about sovereignty.
On a side note, it is never a good idea to allow your judgments to get clouded by anecdotal "evidence", let alone videos on social media. Use statistical data instead.
I merely have an intact and uncorrupted sense of justice. I believe that any country illegally attacked by another country should be helped and the people of that country (if it is democratic) should decide on their own how to defend themselves.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Edit: I'm a fool and read the parent completely incorrectly. Ignore this comment.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
>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%
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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
The video in reference you've provided does not show video evidence of your claims.
I do agree the west, politics, and complex history between nations are obviously at play as to how the war came about, but that does not negate the atrocities committed by Russia.
Bit of a tangent, but I wondered if anyone here is particularly into the serious business of foreign affairs/international relations, and can recommend a primer -- or even a curriculum -- for someone wanting to become more knowledgeable about the field. As with anything, I suspect one is better able to appreciate the ramifications of events of this sort with a more nuanced and informed perspective.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Look into contemporary funding and actions by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, many NGOs and media organisations. It's pretty blatant and now starting to be documented by our own media:
You want some kind of press release where the US state department announced it as a “coup”?
Are you even slightly familiar with US foreign policy in the world? Do you know about what happened in Kosovo/Yugoslavia? Or the Middle East, South America history? Do you know the typical function of US foreign policy arm is to orchestrate regime change?
You really are a special kind of midwit if you can’t see that by now.
Okay, a video attributing fault of the UA crisis to the West. Which of the options I listed are you attempting to back with this source, or put another way, which of my implied claims does this counter? Help me see the relevance.
If we rewind the comment chain back to the root, and just consider this video in the context of today's meeting - can you explain how the points made by the video or the general attribution of fault for the crisis lends support to the strategy and conduct displayed earlier today?
If you want to talk about whether or not the US is at fault for the war, you're in the wrong thread.
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)
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.
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.
If the 50% of people voting for Harris show up, that would be maybe 30% of the US. Probably, not, but I feel like being generous. And that's assuming they all show up. Which we both know they won't.
I think people severely underestimate the level of apathy out in society right now. Until things affect them, they likely aren't gonna be terribly interested.
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?
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.
The thing about the second amendment is that if only the side in power believes in it and is willing to uphold it, then you don't really have a right to bear arms, you have a right to oppress the citizenry with violence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I
I don't think it's territory what Putin wants. Even without its current territories, if Ukraine turns out to be successful and recover in the next 10 years, what will this mean to the Russian population? A total and absolute surrender of Ukraine is the end goal. No EU, no NATO, just another vassal-president and things go on like they were before 2022, but this time with half-destroyed country.
This war should have never started, I actually agree with Trump on this. But for that to happen, NATO should have entered Ukraine the first week after Putin did. And to those in Europe that argue against it, I would only say - are we better off now?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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 120×570mm NATO.
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.
This is what made Mike Pence the perfect VP for Trump at the time - he was never gonna steal the spotlight from Trump. However, Trump is focused almost entirely on loyalty now - the one thing that Mike Pence lacked in the end.
>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."
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.
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.
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.
They notice when lots of constituents call in all at once.
At least you have a congressperson on the wrong side of this who is worth pressuring. I am very tired of making calls that just say "I know you say you're on the right side of this, but will you please try to do anything?"
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
Reminds me of when Trump bragged about the TV ratings for the White House press briefings during Covid, saying the ratings were on par with "The Bachelor" and "Monday Night Football". Ugh.
"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)
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.
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.
>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.
All the opposition had to say was "I'll end wokeism and immigration and will also [popular policy Trump is against]" and they could have easily won themselves
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.
Let me answer that bit first. Most good HN threads are "niche", meaning they are about things far less important than major events. This is on purpose, because if a story's importance were the criterion for HN's front page, then HN would be a current affairs site, and that is definitely not its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One could even say that HN is more for unimportant things, as long as they gratify intellectual curiosity, but the most accurate way to put it is that importance alone is not a criterion.
A certain amount of political overlap has always been part of the mix (that's why the site guidelines say "most" and "probably" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426), but we're careful not to let that amount get too large, because that is critical to preserving the site for its intended purpose.
Here are some links that point to lots of past explanations about this:
If you review the first part of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and then take a look at the above links, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Number of comments doesn't make a thread rank higher on HN. Upvotes make it rank higher, and flags make it rank lower. At this point the balance between upvotes and flags on this story (and other factors, like the time of submission) combine to rank it at #23 or so.
HN's front page 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, or selecting posts for the SCP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).
In this case, community moderation was removing the story from the front page altogether (because flags were dominating upvotes). I overrode that by turning off the flags. Why? Because whatever else one says about this story, it is an interesting new phenomenon (a phrase from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It may even be unprecedented.
However, I didn't turn off the flags to such a degree that the thread would be at #1 because it is not in HN's interest to have a divisive and indignant, even rageful topic at the top of the front page. That would send the wrong message about what this site is for. Having this thread on the front page, but lower down, sends an accurate message about what this site is for. (As for what it is and isn't for—that is covered in the links I listed above.)
Another way of putting this is that while it's in HN's interest to have occasional threads on topics like this, it's important that the flames not burn so hot as to risk burning the site to a crisp. After the 'crisp' stage comes scorched earth, and that is not interesting and it would do no good for HN to end up there. It's true that this tends to be the default fate of internet forums, but HN has right from the beginning been an experiment in trying to stave that fate off for as long as possible.
It is still on the front page right now for me, but at #23, which is exceptionally low compared to where it would be expected to be "naturally" for a post with 1585 points.
If you want more information, I posted a longer answer at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835. If you read that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Thanks, I think you do a fantastic job moderating Hacker News and I realise this post is on a topic that usually wouldn't be surfaced here at all. I do wish all our world leaders could be as diplomatic as you.
And maybe I should read the FAQ properly before I comment on where a post 'should' be.
I wonder what the GOP senators' reactions are to this very sharp turn? They had been strongly supportive of aid to Ukraine, pushing through funding. Maybe that was mostly McConnell and now that he's no longer majority leader, it fell by the wayside? Certainly the "traditional conservative GOP" would be horrified by these events. But maybe all those guys -- McCain, Romney, McConnell, are gone or on their way out.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I don't think the US voting public is ready to see geopolitics from the realpolitik lens instead of the lens of idealism that has been instilled on them from elementary school onwards. Every major US geopolitical intervention has been sold to the voters through ideals like spreading democracy. It'll take a complete rethink of civics education before USians are actually ready to decide the government of the hegemon, both to claim what is theirs by might and to ensure that it's distributed fairly amongst them. I'm also not confident that I want the next generation to become realpolitik bastards before they graduate high school.
He was obviously not going to do anything about inflation despite what he said during his rallies. Actions speak more than words, especially when those words are inconsistent ramblings. We all saw what he did in his first term, and not a single policy decision was made out of concern for ordinary people. It's always about going after people or enriching the super-rich even further.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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
>> 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?”
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.
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.
I too keep thinking of Romney as an exception but his voting record doesn't seem to bear that out. Mitch McConnell has voted against more of Trump's nominees than Romney.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, but until you have large crowds doing a general strike, shutting major and minor cities, it's going to continue and observers abroad are going to conclude that the population is OK with it.
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.
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!
• 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.
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.
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.
Horrible take. We’ve just told every supposed ally of ours that they can’t trust us. Trump just single handedly set back International relations by over a hundred years.
All that post WW2 good will and trust just went poof. You think Germany or France is going to support us after this?
The vast majority of them volunteered. And that's just conscription -- every country would do the same in such a situation. The US pursued and prosecuted thousands of cases of draft dodging in WW2, forcing most of them to go and fight.
In the short term, certainly. In the longer term? I'm pretty glad not to have been born into an occupied British puppet state. If not for a man with the obstinacy of Zelenskyy, I might have been.
It was always ironic that Trump kept a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office but after today, it's almost obscene.
In the longer term there's realistically no chance of Ukraine regaining the land it lost. In both this scenario and that scenario Russia annexes part of Eastern Ukraine, but in that scenario there aren't hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians.
I disagree with you, but you are making a falsifiable prediction. Lets check in two weeks. If it turns out your claim was incorrect, do you plan to update the world that lead to this conclusion?
Trying to follow up with people's absurd claims here is generally considered harassment, so I find it unlikely we'll get something from your parent comment.
Perhaps (hopefully) you are right and its just bread and circuses for us. They really are playing 6D chess and it's really about just being irrational, art of the deal style.
Perhaps related to the discussion:
The Scientific Art of Negotiating with a Possibly Irrational Opponent by William Spaniel
You're right that it's theater, in the sense that the deal is already struck. But Zelensky's anger is real, because Trump's deal is---and always has been, since before the Russian invasion---the surrender of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin. Zelensky understands that he's going to be forced out of office and a Russian puppet will be installed in his place. He is understandably frustrated and angry, and is at least looking for ways to cost Trump as much as he can on the way out the door.
If you doubt any of this, then as you say, watch and learn.
The body languages of Zelensky and Trump are fascinating to look at. You can clearly see that Zelensky is not playing. Also Marco Rubio, drowning more and more on his chair.
The EU has a substantially larger population than the USA, and for now at least, is adamantly opposed to the outcome you describe.
That might be what Trump and Putin want, but they are not the only interested parties here, and Trump is certainly succeeding at waking whatever beast-like qualities the EU/NATO may have left somewhat hidden in the recent past.
Unless the EU can substantially step up its military aid, that's the outcome they're going to get. There is one card that Zelensky and Europe could play, and that's European peacekeepers guaranteeing security. But that's boots-on-the-ground, and I'm not sure Europe has the stomach for that.
I think many understand what is happening, but what can Americans do about it? Posting online and attended protests are not going to move the needle much. What I fear most is that violence might be the only solution, but I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
To be fair, we have Japanese internment camps, slavery, the Trail of Tears, and several others. I'm not sure if this one is going to rank all that highly on the leaderboard.
Most Americans understand and oppose Trump's surrender deal. Unfortunately a significant number of them weren't paying much attention this past November and were conned into voting for the present predicament.
Getting everything they want? Go do some research on what this has cost Russia - its the biggest catastrophe for Russia, possibly ever. They will never recover due to demographic & energy realignment pressure. Try to think ahead.
Their demographic collapse was happening anyway. This made it worse, but they may have already just been resigned to that. I think that's also what made them desperate.
The cost to Russia has been steep, but I think Russia is walking away from this feeling good. Russia's borders are vast and undefendable so they view it as existentially important to control their bordering states as buffers. When one of them flirts with joining NATO they view it with almost the seriousness with which the USA would view, I don't know, California flirting with becoming a part of China.
Its only a catastrophe if they didn't get Ukraine. If they have compromised the sitting US president and get Ukraine they will write history books forever in Russia about how they defeated a super power, expanded the county, with a shit army and Internet trolls.
Ah trump and vance playing the 4D chess no one else knows about.
Why does Russia care if US are being tough on Ukraine? POTUS can issue an EO saying all fundings are cut and not be an asshole about it. If the US wants to be isolated from the war, they can do it without insulting Zelenskyy or trying to get a mineral deal done.
Ah... A student of the clown school of negotiating where bluster, threats, and tantrums take the place of compromise.
Here's the real deal: Trump is a Russian asset, and it is already a foregone conclusion that Ukraine is getting fucked. This is just theatre so he can pin the whole thing on Zelensky.
I don't know if it's 6D chess but it probably was more of a chaos monkey/bury the lead strategy that doesn't take much brain power (i.e. flood the zone).
My hot take is Matt Gaetz, the Greenland purchase and the Canada as the 51st state were all distraction techniques to get the other nominees through.
Alas the person who got the AG slot after Gaetz dropped is just as willing to be a corrupt official personally loyal to Trump. Just without Gaetz' baggage.
I find the idea of Trump playing "3D/4D/5D/6D chess" frankly hilarious. Hell, the man probably can't even play 2D chess. I honestly doubt he even has the patience to learn the rules. He's the kind of person who would get checkmated in 4 moves, flip the opponent's king over, claim victory, and walk away bragging about his genius victory.
What am I supposed to learn from this exchange? You imply that you understand how to negotiate, so maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to how Trump and Vance are achieving a victory on behalf of US interests.
fsckboy, when answering mrtesthah’s question please remember that the best interests of Donald Trump do not align with the best interests of the United States.
> The deal is already made. After this show, they sign it...
You mean the deal Zelenskyy didn't sign prior to leaving? That one?
It's an awfully poor look trying to come off so confidently snarky when you don't even have your facts straight.
Edit:
>(somebody says something unique, from a different perspective in the middle of a circle jerk, and all the tossers lose their shit)
"Unique"? There are multiple responses highlighting that your facts are wrong. You're choosing to ignore those points and instead gripe about having a "unique" take?
I don't know what that is supposed to mean, as far as I know he hasn't been asked to beg or been berated like this by any other nation but the United States.
Your suggestion is that European leaders don’t believe him, which would be counter to every public statement they’ve made.
He’s getting support from European nations. The US is capable of more support, hence asking for it. This isn’t complicated, I have to suspect you know all of this and are being disingenuous anyway, and I cannot fathom why.
"European countries have provided €132 billion in aid (military, financial and humanitarian) as of December 2024, and the United States has provided €114 billion."
And most of that money is flowing back. If the US government buys American weapons and ships them to Ukraine, then the money circulates in the US and leads arms manufacturers to employ people.
With Russia at war with Ukraine, Europeans have turned to US fossil imports and funneling money back to the US.
The arms in Ukraine then hurt the Russian military and degrade it. So it is effectively spend to further American goals even then.
The mental gymnastics performed to make it seem like a loss of US taxpayer money is really insane.
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.
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).
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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?"
> 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.
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.
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...
"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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
There are no “arguments” being raised here. An argument would be something like “America relies on Ukraine as a key source of XYZ so it would be bad if Russia took it over.” Can you even tell me without looking how much U.S.-Ukraine trade there was before the war?
All these platitudes about “interests” and “soft power” seem to be predicated on an assumption that nobody is willing to articulate. Are we all expected to be Francis Fukuyama cultists here who take it as axiomatic that it’s in america’s interest to defend the borders of european countries? If that’s the argument, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Because I happen to think liberals have actually been right on that issue since the 1970s.
The argument is that appeasing Putin in Donbas will work about as well as appeasing him in Crimea, creating successively more damaging conflicts in Europe until Article 5 gets tested and either NATO falls apart or we enter a hot war with Russia, and yeah, that's gonna cost money. You know that this is the point of the WWII comparison, which is why you have so studiously ignored the argument, trying to dodge it harder than neo dodging bullets in the first matrix.
Nobody in America knows what a Donbas or a Crimea is. These all sound like Russian places to me. The names of the places alone sound like they are none of America’s business.
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.
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"
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.
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.”
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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 continue using the India example due to the plan to finalize the EU-India FTA this year [0] - countries like Germany+Spain 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+Spanish+Czech automotive manufacturers like Volkswagen AG (includes Spain's Seat and Czechia's Skoda) largely invested in China during the 2000s but French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers like Renault-Nissan, Citroen/Fiat/Stellantis, and Piaggo (scooters yes but THE scooter in India) invested heavily in India. An EU-India FTA doesn't impact French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers but directly undermines and harms German+Spanish+Czech manufacturers.
And Indian biopharma companies (the only manufacturing industry that India is competitive at globally) 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+Spanish+Czech companies and benefit French+Italian+Romanian 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 $1.4B in interest [1] - an amount that will destroy VW Group's business in India [2] and maybe even globally depending on Chinese and NAM sales as it's an amount that's 17% of their net income).
And this is one of dozens of examples where individual European nation states do not have strategic alignment, and why when push comes to shove, they all ignore the EU and prioritize their own domestic needs.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
The needs of America, never hand anything to do with it ( except under Democrats who view has us resist oppression ), its Manifest Destiny, Law of Nations all the way.
1. We are not footing the bill, we are providing for part of the cost.
"Europe gave $275 Billion. United states gave $125 Billion"
2. The U.S. has citizens in Ukraine, just as Ukraine has citizens year.
3. It is not about needs... Americans have needs to feel safe from oppression, and a stable economy, both of those are out of the question now, thanks in no small part to this type of information manipulation/Disinformation.
Rather than counter all your claims with facts, who needs facts, and your inflammatory language. I shall leave you to Minos.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Also, US-Europe immigration is largely moribund. Most immigration to the US now comes from Asian and LatAm states, so a lot of us Americans prioritize those problems and needs above Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The EU should have visa programs for skilled professionals looking to leave the U.S.
We don't have a skilled worker shortage in EU right now, we have a skilled jobs shortage. All white collar skilled job ads are flooded with local applicants, we don't need more immigrants to water down wages and push up rents. My (f500 company) company just laid off 70 SW & HW engineers at one office while I've been part of the layoffs before.
The real shortages are in healthcare, and tough jobs people don't like to do for little money, like construction or elderly care, but there's enough Europeans willing to work cushy office jobs there's no need to import foreign competition other than to appease the corporate pushed propaganda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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].
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.
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].
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.
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).
During election when Trump said outrageous things, a lot of people had the same attitude as you, and downplayed Trump's comments: he's trolling... he is bluffing... it is just a distraction tactic... it is a negotiation tactic... and so on.
Then after he got elected and actually started doing the things he said he would the same people are like... "Trump is delivering exactly what he promised what he would deliver when he started this campaign. This is what the American people voted for!"
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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...
>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.
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...
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.
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Countries all over the world should want to help stop an aggressor before it expands and becomes powerful enough to attack them. It's a no brainer, and you have plenty of examples throughout history.
As things stand now, 5 years from now USA could become overrun with russian mobs and oligarch running rampant, and EU faces the real possibility of another continental conflict. I don't think many people around the world are going to enjoy that scenario.
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.
> 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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”?
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?
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The (moderate) left was anti-oppression and anti-dictatorship. Sometimes you need to fight for that, but the goal remains a stable, egalitarian and peaceful society.
If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.
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?
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, Russia has been interfering a lot recently. And don't you find it quaint how what Trump does aligns with Russian interests? He has already weakened diplomatic ties to all western countries, killed USAID (who is going to move in to get all that goodwill? China of course). Put doubts in people about the meaning and guarantees of NATO.
And he calls Zelensky a dictator and refuses to call Putin one. Laughable. If there is no russian interference trump is even more clueless than I thought.
So why did Trump invite a so-called dictator to the Oval Office? You are going to have a very long 4 years of Trump if you choose to remain willfully ignorant about what his administration is about or if you place more importance on his negotiation tactics over the results.
It's hilarious how some people actually believe Trump's lies that Ukraines support is actually freely given/a donation.
In reality, the support is literally the US selling the old garbage military equipment to the Ukraine for debt. You know, the stuff that the actual US military considers too old to actually use anymore.
Especially ironic in the context of Ukraines treaty with the US, which is why they dont have any nukes anymore. Which was most likely the reason why Russia finally felt comfortable invading them in 2014 and now.
Despite that being a lie... If it weren't, I'm not sure how that's relevant?
The EU isn't demanding that the Ukraine becomes an effective colony to be exploited at will by thenn for dubious claims of a solution. Neither did it have the treaty. Both of which were the things that made it ironic.
The majority of the "funds" pay for products like shells and missiles made by American labor (which encompasses quite a few Trump voters!) in America with American parts and American steel and American know-how. We're donating no-longer-used Bradleys, F-16s, Javelins that are reaching (sometimes past!) their expiration date, etc.
> The notion of “aid to Ukraine” is a misnomer. Despite images of “pallets of cash” being sent to Ukraine, about 72 percent of this money overall and 86 percent of the military aid will be spent in the United States. The reason for this high percentage is that weapons going to Ukraine are produced in U.S. factories, payments to U.S. service members are mostly spent in the United States, and even some piece of the humanitarian aid is spent in the United States.
(As a bonus, we're getting to try out all our stuff against Russia's best, in a way we've never really gotten to. It's an incredible ad for American defense contractors.)
If you'd told the old Cold Warriors that a small fraction of a single year's military budget could turn the Russian military into a shadow of its original, they would not have believed you.
You can ask CharGPT what "interests" mean in this context, it can give you a comprehensive explanation connecting these interests to GDP and quality of life of US citizens in the long term. You no longer can play stupid.
FWIW US spent less than 100B in 3 years of war, it's nothing compared to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it serves an important function, "every cent counts!" makes no sense here as the goal is to prevent bigger confrontation in the future
>Zelensky implied Russia would invade the U.S. Do you think that’s likely?
He did not. What he did say is, that should Russia start to expand the war to other countries (as is very likely if Ukraine falls), these effects will be felt by the people in the US.
That statement is obviously true. The effects of the Ukraine war could also be felt, as it affected the economy across the globe.
> We cannot continue spending trillions of dollars and risking American lives based on weasel words like “interests” and “allies.” Say what you really mean.
What he means is whatever Russia is interested in doing, Trump is motivated to agree to given his open, well-documented idolization of Putin and other dictators, making us effective allies. Your attempts to devalue OP's argument like pretending he is being too vague are quite trasparent and do not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, you need to prove why Trump's recent behavior and remarks toward Putin don't establish us as allies with shared interests.
> He said that it could come to American shores - the bite, the cyberwar, the nukes - not necessarily only the army.
> You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?
jump right to the most extreme possible claim to pull from the above and _strrrretch_ it -- impeccable form! It's not even a logical fallacy, it's just lying about what the person before you said, presented as though they look foolish for saying it. Smooth, hollow, soulless stuff.
But then again, most Americans seem to have no issue with AIPAC having near full control over congress. Because if they did, we'd have seen more outrage and action.
I think this take only makes sense if there is no such thing as morally or justice. If we were just discussing a business deal, fine, but Ukrainians are being killed and told to be nicer to the killer’s leader. It’s an insane position.
> 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Broadly speaking, it’s because Putin is pissed that the Soviet Union fell (he lived through it as a KGB member in East Berlin), and Russia culturally originated around Kiev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27), so he sees it as part of what should be the Russian empire. There are some important industries and resources in Ukraine, plus better access to the Black Sea, and Ukraine’s orientation towards the EU and NATO is seen as an ideological and military threat, but the perceived humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union, not being respected in the Western world, and trying to undo that and restore Russia’s glory, seems to be what is driving Putin the most.
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.
If you’re a European, you should try identifying the psyops more with yourselves and your families, and support unification and democratic alliances where possible. And talk more about it since most people are absolutely influenced by conspiracies across the whole continent and across social strata. The UK was talking about the EU instituting straight bananas, and it was a key point for Brexit, including by the UK Prime Minister (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...)
If you’re an American, good luck. I’m sorry you’re gonna have to go through this.
At the end of the day, if you voted one way, it wasn’t your fault. You were probably deceived by foreign psyops. Happens to everyone.
If you voted the other way, don’t be angry. Turning it into class warfare does not provide any moral victory, and more so, is once again a distraction from the group of people who really are to blame for this. This is a the rallying point you were waiting for to become more politically active, in whatever way you can.
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.
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:
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
It depends how well European countries are able to defend themselves (and their political systems) from attack and corruption by Russia. So far, IMO, results have been mixed. I am hopeful for Europe though.
It will be tough. America is now trying to export American-style fascism to Europe as well. So we have a new enemy, a former friend who has betrayed us. As I say, it'll be tough.
If it comes to that, the current global society is done and gone, and quite possibly humanity with it. No way the UK doesn't have control over their own devices though.
"Although the UK’s nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of NATO, we retain full operational control over its use. Only the UK Prime Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons, even if used as part of a wider NATO response."
It's also just not at all believable that they would not be able to push their own buttons. Why would it be set up that way? And what would prevent fixing it even if it were?
Do you think maybe calling their citizens Orcs and insane rhetoric against Putin aka Hitler 2.0 might cause a great deal of tension for a country with nuclear weapons? What is your cool and calm strategy for this world dilemma?
Underestimating your enemies is a common mistake. Not only are Trump, Putin, and Dugin all intelligent people, they all have access to much more and much better intelligence than you or I.
Trump especially irks me, because he's calculated his entire persona to appear somewhat dumb, and it works. He's not an idiot at all, and people espousing that view are falling for propaganda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
/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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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]"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week ordered U.S. Cyber Command to stand down from all planning against Russia, including offensive digital actions.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The west has immense influence on Ukrainians, and have pushed for their integration into NATO for decades.
The arguments Mearsheimer is making are not whether Ukrainians should or should not have any choice over their own country. It’s whether they do. And the unfortunate reality is that they don’t, due to their unfortunate situation.
This argument doesn’t make sense now that Ukraine lost the war, now it’s empirically proven that Ukrainians don’t in fact get to choose and this line of thinking is what led to the war in the first place.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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 :(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What’s bad is the example Trump is setting for future presidents of United States. Also another worse thing is he is installing all yes man/woman who seem clueless in their posts
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.
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. :|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Hard to tell when his platform and Grok 3 were/are actively censoring and spread disinformation. From another comment I made in the thread:
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."
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.
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.
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").
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I think most Americans have already made up their mind on Donald Trump. Nothing will matter until individuals' personal financial situations are affected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Or they can negotiate for peace. This is how most wars end. It is also how this war will end. If only the 2022 Istanbul negotiations were supported by the west instead of being undermined. If I were Ukrainian I would be furious with the western 'allies', essentially lying about unconditional support and promoting an impossible outcome for their own geopolitical interests. Utterly shameful.
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.”
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k 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).
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".
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.
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.
Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!
But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
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.
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.
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.
Whataboutism? We're literally talking about a war Russia is the aggressor in.
The US has stronger legal protection for speech and guns, but also more incarceration and police power. US incarceration rate is four times the UK rate.
Also in the UK, the speech restrictions are about stuff like glorifying terrorism, hate speech or harassment. You can criticize the government as much as you want.
In the US you're free to buy a gun, praise ISIS, and shout on the street that people should be murdered or that you love Hitler but not everyone likes that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Freedom to promote Nazism and to promote the rehabilitation of Nazis isn't welcomed in Europe.
Yes, it might theoretically make Europe less free, and now you have the Twitter guy being a member of the US administration doing Nazi salutes and promoting far right parties.
Suddenly Hitler was a victim. Like the disregard for the thousands of young men lost on the D day and to the war, to reach this freedom you're preaching.
Yet that doesn't seem to leave any sour taste, go figure.
But I have to ask, why you want the freedom for people to be able to promote Nazism?
He claimed, incorrectly, that people who live near abortion "buffer zones" in Scotland were sent letters by the government warning them about praying privately within their own homes. This was nonsense.
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?
> 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.
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.
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?
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".
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
I think that everybody else did the same as Obama back then. Obama really got into this bombing-people-with-drones-in-some-places-around-the-world stuff.
Those are two different situations with completely different ramifications.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>The US government absolutely participated in over throwing the existing pro-Russian government around 2014.
This is explicitly Russian propaganda. There is no evidence of this. Euromaidan happened because Ukrainians wanted to get closer to Europe, which is why they voted for people who said they would get closer to Europe, and then aggressively erupted into protest when that leader went to Russia and came back with a 180 degree different plan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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/https://hn.algolia.com/?query=secret%20history%20of%20silico...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Zelensky went there under the pretext of signing the mineral deal, but changed his mind before arriving.
That's not true. The agreement that both sides drafted was agreed upon and Zelensky planned on signing it.
> Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.
No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression.
> Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.
To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO. And the only time it's been used so far was for 911 when all NATO countries came to the US's aid after it was attacked.
As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU. The number Trump keep pushing, $350BN is lies. Ukraine has seen about $70 Billion. Which Zelensky has thanked the US for on may occasions, notably in front of congress.
The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who commited war crimes and abducted children, and continue to bomb civilian areas say after day. Instead of shaking down a country and people at their weakest hour for money that was given to it by the previous president?
The linked article doesnt mention the agreement changing. Did it? If it did I can understand him not signing it.
However there was reporting prior to his arrival that he didnt intend to sign it, and considered it something that lower level officials could do. This was after the impression was given that he was coming to the US to sign it, as you admitted was his intention.
> No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression
NATO membership for Ukraine is an attempt to call Russia's bluff that they wouldn't continue fighting, or escelate to nuclear weapons if Ukraine were admitted. That is a direct die roll on starting WW3 and Ukraine is not worth it.
> To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO.
I think you understood that I meant for Ukraine. If not, well, it wasn't difficult to see that's what I meant.
Yes, the US should, and I and most Americans do support, upholding Article 5 obligations.
> As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU.
I hope you're joking.
> The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who...
The west collectively went hard on Russia. We gave Ukraine more of a fighting chance than anyone could possibly hope for. But Russia is winning. We will not escalate to risking WW3. Ukrainians are amazingly tough people and what happened to them is a tragedy, but its in their best interest to stop fighting and dying.
Both sides agree that America has provided at least $100 billion and possibly up to a half-trillion in aid and other consideration to Ukraine. That's a fair bit of money!
And, if Zelenskyy is to be believed, it was a "grant", or a gift, which makes Zelenskyy's disrespectful attitude and hubris in the White House even more outrageous.
Possibly there isn’t a critique of his behavior because there isn’t a critique to be made: from a website like hacker news where every reasonable position is usually represented, it should tell you something that this is unanimous.
Trump and Vance’s behavior seems outrageous for leaders of the US. Zelensky certainly didn’t handle everything perfectly, but in comparison he looks like an actual president.
Technically, Zelenskyy instituted martial law and cancelled Ukrainian elections, so although he is the undisputed leader in power in Ukraine, he's not an elected president.
Do actual presidents show up in sweatshirts and insult their benefactors?
He’s been very outspoken about why he doesn’t wear suits.
And my god if you think he showed up and insulted Trump, think how anyone would feel if you showed up for a photo op and got tag team bullied by the US president and vp.
> WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;
It's not being reported on much, but they have moved towards normalizing diplomatic relations and Russia and the US are negotiating the outline of the deal now.
Here is a recent video with John Mearsheimer (a foreign policy expert) giving commentary on recent developments. [1] John Mearsheimer was (and still is) completely baffled by the mineral deal which as you point out seems to be a distraction.
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?
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.
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?
> 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.
> 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.
why does trump need augurs (like scop) to divine a cogent narrative. trump obviously can't and none in his administration can.
the simple explanation; trump is spiteful (e.g. all the references to obama, biden), vance a toadie (unreal, the petulance) , and they can only talk in terms of "deals", TV soap opera trash dialogue. zelensky argues that deals need guarantees. all that is in that 10 minute video, for all to see. clear as day. and we've have observed, with the the same clarity, similar displays (maybe of lesser intensity) the last 10 years or so.
the 4d chess explanation; scop needs to come along (sorry scop to pull you in!, I like your optimism), and we need to trust there's a deep bench actually acting with any sort of cohesive purpose on that vision. unlike the simple explanation, there's very little evidence. usa foreign policy is untethered now, only thing left to do is reading the flight of the birds.
i want to believe, but there is a ton of posthoc rationalizing going on the trump side. it was like this after 2016, a different stable time, after 8 years of blissfully dreadfully boring obama stability. it is not such a time now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Mearsheimer and Kissinger, your next citation should be Chomsky and then Posadas by my calculations.
Ukraine was never coerced into an anti-Russian agenda, they simply wanted the same security guarantees they're refused today. You shouldn't hinge your entire argument on a video that can be refuted in a single sentence.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My read on the situation is that Zelensky is willing to make any deal for lasting peace. Meaning, if a deal is made and Russia ignores the ceasefire or continues its invasion in a month or year, what will happen to them? This is literally what he asked because Russia has violated all of the previous agreements in the same way.
What Trump was offering was to take a chunk of their resources for another temporary peace offer. Which as noted above, will almost certainly be violated in the near term by Russia again. So Ukraine is not only back where they started, but also lost a chunk of their resources. Why would Zelensky agree to that?
It's good to be exposed to different views, but that guy takes the point he's trying to make too far. He blames everyone but Russia for the war Russia decided to start in 2014 and expand in 2022.
Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the US, not NATO, not the EU. It was Russia. It's very important to remember who did what.
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.
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.
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 !
In a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.
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
> 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 Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
> 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?
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?
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…
There is no alternative. Europe tried to peacefully coexist with Germany in the 1930s. Standing up to imperialist dictators is the least bloody option.
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
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".
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
> 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.
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?
Zelenskyy: A lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you, but you have a nice ocean and but don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.
Trump: You don't know that.
Zelenskyy: God bless, you will not have a war...
So, it is what it is, and you need to be careful of what you say when dealing with people like Trump, especially in front of the cameras.
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.
Old video, seen it, has some more or less valid takes, but at the end of the day it's been Russia that attacked Ukraine.
And pundits and scholars about this being geopolitical chess games in eastern Europe are largely, albeit not completely, mistaken. This has always been about Putin's fear of democracy in Russia and him losing the grip in his own country. It is no coincidence that Russia attacked Ukraine a month after the unrest in Kazakhstan[1], few weeks after Russian military helped crush it.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
And days after the election he started threatening potential military force to acquire Greenland and Panama, and economic force to annex Canada.
The reasons he was elected are irrelevant, only his actions since being elected and taking power are.
Since then, Trump has proposed ethnic cleansing and gentrification of Ghaza, and proposed launching attacks into Mexico (putatively to take out cartel members). Anyone who thinks that Trump or his administration are looking for peace or peaceful solutions is clearly delusional.
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.
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.
You keep saying peace, but if Ukraine stops fighting without security guarantees from countries like the US they get murdered, raped and their children abducted by Russia. How do we know? The war started in 2014, not 2022.
That's the truth that Trump won't acknowledge and common us opinions don't have the understanding of. It's inconvenient and annoying. The only person who can stop this war and bring peace is Putin. Trump could try forcing him, but it's easier just to sacrifice the entire country of Ukraine?!
Exactly! This is the key. Why do you think Trump was the first US president that didn’t see Putin mount an offensive during his term? Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth during his first term, while being sure not to escalate with Putin. He carried a big stick but also didn’t provoke. Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable for Putin. Fact of life. US wouldn’t want Chinese military defenses in Mexico. Biden admin and Europe seem obsessed with this, but Ukraine in NATO ain’t gonna happen without risking a hot war with A FUCKING NUCLEAR POWER. We either end this now or at the very least drive Russia further into China’s arms or provoke a real WW with millions dead. This isn’t just good vs evil. Reality sucks sometimes, but you gotta deal with it. Trump admin is completely ready and willing to provide arms and aid to Ukraine, just as they did in first term. But we’re sick and tired of seeing endless aid further provoking a nuclear power with absolutely nobody envisioning an end other than “we beat Putin”. All the while we deplete our munitions, supplies, money, and have Russia-China rise.
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.
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.
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.
That one media guy asking about Zelensky's lack of a suit and it being disrespectful to the Oval Office. Completely out of touch, the man has about a million other things to worry about than that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was Russia happy about those countries joining NATO or did it protest? Were the relationships between the East and the West better so that this was of less concern? Was Russia weaker and had less power to resist? I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern.
How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
I am not determined to believe anything, I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. I can give you countless examples over several decades where Russia protest NATO expansion and threatened consequences. Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? And before you say On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, make sure you actually read it.
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?
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.
The NATO declaration from the 2008 Bucharest Summit was that Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members, both unacceptable for Russia. Georgia was promptly invaded in 2008. Until 2014 under president Yanukovych Ukraine did not seek closer ties to NATO. That changed in 2014 and Russia annexed Crimea. [1] While Russia wanted the Minsk agreements to work, the West just used them as tools to buy more time. Despite repeated protests and demands from Russia right until the invasion, NATO position did not show any signs of change. So in my opinion that is all just escalation to get NATO to accept the demands or prevent a NATO membership with force. Even in the negotiation in the first weeks of the war, Russia was willing to end the war for non-membership of Ukraine.
[1] The timeline in late 2013 and 2014 is somewhat confusing with respect to my point of view, the turn towards NATO seems to come after the annexation and the events in eastern Ukraine. But there might have been an element of anticipation or non-public information.
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.
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.
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 ....
The EU has donated more to Ukraine's war effort than the US, despite coverage suggesting otherwise.
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
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.
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...
Only about 18% of which is actually owned by Russia. The rest is money that happened to be in transit between private persons at an unfortunate time. Do we really think it's fair that a lady who happened to be selling her house at exactly the time the war started... should have that money donated to Ukraine's war effort?
Absolutely, she shouls pay! Also EU should suspend(or tax 100%) pensions and all social benefits to sponsor the war! If that is not enough, confiscate private companies and private properties!
I was saying that for years, since the war started! People thought it is some kind of joke. But that was the only way to win!
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.
~30% of voting age Americans voted for the current president. ~29% voted for the other option.
And how many were too apathetic to even bother voting?
Look we're all grateful for the Americans that do care about The Alliance but we've seen the political trends in America and it looks bad. You can't elect Trump twice and say it doesn't represent America. Trump's politics isn't going away. The Democrats allowed 'radical' social change to dictate the party platform and didn't implement enough reforms to please the average citizen. Until they do or Trump makes massive blunders we don't have a hope that the old America is coming back.
When people choose not to have their vote represented, for whatever reason, when the outcome was so clear in advance, then there is practically, legally, morally and philosophically no distinction between not voting and voting for Trump.
We (Americans) can’t be relied on. Yeah most Americans are still supportive of Europe but our political system produces whipsaw foreign policy. The end result of all this is America is weakened on the global stage as our allies lose faith in us and start working around us. Why should Europeans boycott China, sanction Iran, support Israel, isolate Cuba, intervene in another Iraq? These are American priorities, not European ones.
> voted by >50% americans
Nobody in the last election got over 50% of the vote tally.
Correct. Trumps final vote tally was 49.7% and somehow is enjoying nearly unchecked power.
49.7% of the 30% of Americans who voted.
Still nowhere near 50% of Americans.
> 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.
American hegemony happened by chance, and the dollar just won the reserve currency lottery?
Granted, not every war was a net win but that war machine is uniquely expensive and it may be sacrifice the public is willing to pay. But it probably wouldn't hurt to see how contemporary books on history differs from propaganda.
This is simply not the case. There US has very successfully used it’s military to enjoy the position of absolute top dog in the world, but a major part of why they could do that was that the US has made very strong allies in the whole rest of the western world who have never, until now, seen any reason to try to compete with the US in this regard.
A well placed network of foreign aid has also generated influence in other parts of the world.
The United States has now irrevocably destroyed this position.
There will be enough time for the Trump Family and Elon to make out like the bandits they are, but the US position long term is diminished.
Ukraine needs the same kind of support, but instead, they got misguided "de-escalation" that only boxed Ukraine in and gave the initiative to Russia. By knowing that the US would force Ukraine to throttle back every time the Russians made a large misstep, Russia was encouraged to keep escalating without the fear of triggering an overwhelming response.
Fucking low dog fool. It costs the US nothing to basically shut down Russia.
Russia owns the US. That’s what everyone can see outside of the US.
Even in WW2? You would rather have seen Hitler win?
[flagged]
Shall they give their children to Putin instead?
the Ukraine
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.
Noone in Europe knows these are loans. Everyone assumes the money is gone. Politicians don’t talk about loans, they talk about giving money to Ukraine.
Loans are the way to do it because of the way most European budgets work. But you can’t call them regular loans in good faith, and no politician in Europe does so. The language towards the public is that Europe is giving money.
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.
No one will bother about those loans when a Ukrainian victory will give the EU access to at least the Ukrainian market if not also the market of a new democratic Russia. Please do some long-term thinking on this.
[flagged]
Oh, you mean their children would be so much happier under Russia's rule once it invades more European countries? Those people may argue with that.
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.
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
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.
What did we replace "legacy" ATACMS with we could use in a war today? PrSM?
In November 2023, the Army delivered the first four Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) as an early operational capability (EOC). The Army shot two PrSM EOC missiles at a maritime target in June 2024. Between November 2023 and August 2024, the Army executed three production qualification test (PQT) events. The Army intends to complete a limited user test (LUT) with the fifth PQT test event in 1QFY25 and the remaining four planned PQT test events by 3QFY25.
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2024/army/...
There is no proper replacement for ATACMS yet. At the projected rate of production for the new replacement missile, a years worth would last about a couple weeks of usage in a serious conflict. ATACMS are still 100% valuable to the US.
> A total of 110 PrSMs are expected to be procured in fiscal 2024 and 190 in fiscal 2025, Inside Defense wrote, citing the Department of Defense documents.
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision-str...
ATACMS... The ones Biden reluctantly donated after Ukraine begged for them because they can strike deeper behind the frontlines and inside Russian territory? They may be an older platform but they appear to be highly desirable and still brought out for juicy targets.
It was 31 M1s donated, last time I looked. And they survived a helluva lot longer against the droneless Iraqi Army, which helps explain the low number. A $500 drone can ignite a $5M tank. Drones have changed the calculus of tank warfare.
Maybe the AT4 and NLAW didn't have the same effectiveness of Javelin? The Javelin has had a pretty good PR campaign with it's point and destroy videos.
Not to mention that maintaining M1s must be a nightmare.
The Ukrainians seem to prefer the Bushmasters. This kind of makes sense, given it seems a lot of what Ukraine is doing is guerrilla warfare then equipment that is easily serviceable likely is more useful.
The west made these weapons to counter Russian tanks. Every Javelin fired by a Ukrainian takes out one more tank that we don't have to worry about.
They didnt send their newst javelins. They send their oldest.
"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?"
US never wanted to fight Russia directly as it would mean nuclear escalation.
US needs somewhat strong Russia as a scarecrow for Europe and everyone else in the world, so that people would join NATO and pay 4% of GDP to the American military industrial complex: Lockheed Raytheon and friends.
The goal is to scare people and force them to shell out dough for overpriced US weapons.
If Russia becomes too weak, there are two risks:
so American goal is to keep somewhat stable Russia and force EU to shell dough on US weapons. Thats the racket, everything else is a distractionWhat about china as a weapons exporter?
Yeah man all that stuff was built in the 80s to counter the Soviet threat. We have better stuff now.
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.
Plenty of european countries have given both stockpiles and modern weapons.
As an example sweden has given Strv-122, CV90, Archer, Saab 340 AEW&C 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.
This has very long term repercussions for the US. No-one is making the mistake of using a US jet engine in their design again and getting export controls because of that. Already plans are evaluated for switching to an upgraded Volvo RM12 or something from Rolls-Royce.
The same scenes must be playing out in various industries across Europe and the rest of the world. Such wheels turn very slowly, but they now turn away from the US defense industry.
The US has burned a lot of capital today.
Certainly a world where NATO countries spend <2% of their budget on defence but the shiny new weaponry all comes from US contractors doesn't seem obviously more helpful than one where they're targeting 3% spend but making a point of building domestic industries or buying from pan-European projects.
Plenty of NATO members already build and buy from non-US sources. France basically made it a principle because of their historic fence-sitting NATO policy, Sweden mostly builds its own (but licenses parts from US/UK like fighter engines), other countries are buying artillery or tanks from south korea, etc. The US itself buys anti-tank weapons and riverine patrol boats from sweden, dutch rifles, german handguns and much more.
"but the shiny new weaponry all comes from US contractors" is not true.
It is true that the US has spent far more on it's military and made it far more global than any other country. It is also true that the US acted as a guarantor for west Europes security for most of the last 80 years and that should not be understated. That era seems to have come to an end.
Stockpiles of obsolete weapons are exactly the military aid other countries have been giving to Ukraine. You may want to check your sources.
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.
> 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.
The EU froze over 200 billion Euros from Russian assets. Russia will never see that money again. Once Putin is defeated Ukraine's debt will be paid with that.
Also, please do think long-term: A victory for Ukraine and a second try for democracy in Russia will mean that the EU will regain huge markets right at its doorstep that need rebuilding and in the case of Russia some diversification would be sensible.
Isn't Trump now trying to make Ukraine give up natural resources now? That doesn't quite meet my definition of "donation".
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is hopeful news, because we need a leader right now.
I’ve heard (can’t recall source) that a good proportion of Russia’s nuclear arsenal hasn’t been maintained and is no longer operational.
That is absolutely a possibility, but not a certainty, and a very dangerous gamble to make. That said, Europe probably does need its own nuclear deterrent and its own anti-ballistic missile defense.
But is that a game of Russian roulette you'd want to play?
We burn cash at the front and the richest nation wins.
Afghanistan could afford an indefinite war against a superpower twice in the past 50 years.
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.
Especially when that nuclear power is Russia. After all, if we had to credit a single country, Russia defeated both Napoleon and Hitler.
Does this confer from the depth of history, current Russia some magical abilities in the present?
This is magical thinking. Russia is near bankrupt.
But they lost to Afghanistan and Finland.
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
The trick is to avoid invading them and make them come out to play.
>Russia defeated both Napoleon and Hitler.
In Russia. In fact it was Russia's winter the one who did most of the work. The Russian army was always very bad.
Now Putin is Napoleon or Hitler invading other countries.
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.
Only thing the Russian people have to fear is falling out of a balcony in a hotel, those things are REALLY dangerous
> 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?
My point is that the Russian people have a capacity for self-sacrifice that shouldn't be underestimated, especially when their (perceived) sovereignty is threatened.
During WW2, for example, the Soviets lost a total of 20-27 million dead. Only China, a country almost three times as populous, came close at 15-20 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_...
The British Empire lost less than 500,000.
The Soviet Union lost 20m+ dead because they faced an existential threat from an enemy that intentionally massacred multiple millions of them[1]
The situation isn't quite that bad in either Russia or Ukraine which was also one of the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. But it's certainly closer in Ukraine, even if most Russians hold an irrational level of enthusiasm for the war
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.
I guess it shows how critical is technology that keeps the human away from harms reach. Drones are a great example of that, especially how costly/hard it is to train a jet pilot.
With (almost) fully autonomous weapons and systems it comes down to simply who has the better economy and production lines.
Says who?
They don't even have enough 155 shells, long range drones, body armour, training facilities, fighter jets, bombers, cruise missiles, tanks, howitsers. The list goes on and on. It's exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.
They had to develop their own long range drones instead of getting off-the-shelf stuff. Germany blocked Taurus, Tomahawks were a no-go.
(The US gave 31 M1 tanks! That's pitiful...)
Says Michael Kofman.
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.
It does seem there's been plenty of actual arms, vehicles etc in military aid from European countries to Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
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...
"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.
I hadn't heard about anyone becoming officially an emperor recently. Who are you referring to?
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.
Okay, so when you said official, you meant unofficial. Got it. I'm with you completely on the rest of it.
No, I meant de facto official. Putin is de facto a emperor, just not de jure. (but not need to further do pedantic semantics ..)
You are echoing Russian propaganda. European states are not expecting money back from Ukraine.
Isn't it heavy weaponry is mostly the junk that US military didn't want to use. Mostly expired weapons.
It's the stuff from the 80s and 90s designed to turn back a Russian land invasion in Europe.
It's proven to be perfectly adequate for the job.
It's stuff that would actually cost to trash, the us is at least a generation ahead of that equipment.
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..
> 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.
Trump is merely another step in the bar being lowered. And make no mistake, it can go lower.
The Western acceptance of authoritarianism in exchange for a good deal is what got us here. It's not just the US; it's Europe too. Putin did what he did because he knew that Europe was willing to exchange the end of Russian subordination to the post-Cold War world order for cheap gas. Middle Eastern countries have seen their awful human rights records punished by the granting of a World Cup by FIFA and European tourism to Dubai. Both China and Russia were made Olympic hosts in the last 20 years. Russia hosted a World Cup in 2018, four years after the invasion of Crimea and ten years after its invasion of Georgia.
The message? Authoritarianism pays.
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...
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.
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.
Of course, everyone in Slovakia (or Hungary) are not firmly aligned with Russia. I hope the scales tip west-ward in the next elections.
The problem is, Fico and his alikes are popular in Slovakia. They are not anomaly, they truly represent what majority finds appealing.
Many if not most Slovakians want to be like Fico, earn money like him and be like him.
It can be beaten, but it is not an anomaly. Not even historically, slovakia was quick to collaborate with nazi and communists.
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.
The EU has probably net helped Russia with all the gas they have bought
I would say that it's a net loss in the long term with all the gas they stopped buying.
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.
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…
> 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.
Germany’s energy policy has unfortunately shaped the EU one to the catastrophic level it is now.
I don’t know enough about local politics to categorise the reason why though. But a lot of the damage is now irrevocable, and residual for millennia.
@marvin Do you want to leave next to a nuclear power plant when you know that Russian bombs or ISIS or other enemies could blow it? I don't.
This isn't a credible reason to wed yourself to Russian gas and decommission the plants Germany already had ruining. Despite three years of bombing the nuclear plants in Ukraine have not been (properly) hit.
Terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations can be dealt with via the standard security services.
German aversion to a functional army and nuclear energy has had consequences for the country and the EU.
> war effort
"War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.
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.
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.
it's a corporate welfare programme.
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.
Out of 8800 tanks produced.
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
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then you're agreeing with the GP that this is dishonour.
I fully understand this sentiment. After all, combined more than $6tn (!) have been spent on the rather ill-advised engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It's unfortunate that the US invested so much in these affairs that there is little capacity or willingness left now when it matters.
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.)
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.
> doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak.
Not really sure I care if the neighbors across the water think we look weak just because we don’t want to defend them because they don’t want to be strong.
And bear in mind that doesn’t mean that we are weak…
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.
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.
America looks weak because it has just lost the cold war. All the effort spent since 1945 to counter authoritarian superpowers have been thrown in the bin. Instead it turned into one itself. It is pathetic.
Pathetic is to have an authoritarian superpower on the same continent as you for 80 years and still opting to rely on a superpower an ocean away to be the primary defender of your interests.
Some of the countries in Europe to take a cue from Finland and not outsource its defense.
> 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.
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
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.
But cleaning can't be done Musk's way. The whole system is kinda stable because everything is linked together. To start from scratch without anything in the meantime is just suicide. It's like if a scientist what not giving food to an animal for a month to test if really food is needed. Well, he will conclude that food was needed, but now the animal is dead.
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".
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.
Perhaps saying "Russia made the US lose the cold war" would be more accurate than saying "Russia won". From a lost position, Russia managed to make the US resign from the game.
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.
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.
> Britain, Germany, and France
These three countries have been a bit unstable politically during the last couple of years. This did not help. At least they are going in the same direction and not shooting each other’s foot.
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
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.
I agree, but they have still sent more aid than the US
EU is united until it comes time to pay the bill
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...
The dark humor in me really wants Russia to be colored dark blue in that map.
https://youtu.be/IwYVKptqH_o?si=wkGH8i_gY-_AfaK2&t=54
(Edit, this is from late 90s and the NATO action in Yugoslavia)
I thought this was an interesting take. And it's sad that the US has a man giving away our leadership. The world is in a dangerous place.
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.
Exactly what I said to alephnerd above.
[flagged]
So what is your actual preference? That Russia simply be allowed to invade and take over Ukraine "because Ukraine was pretty damn corrupt anyway" ? What does that accomplish?
The point isn't to pick the "best democracy" as if it were a beauty pageant. It was to oppose unilateral military invasion as an instrument of national policy, which is bad regardless of the form of government of the victim.
Ukraine might have been corrupt, but it was a peaceful neighbor and evolving in the right directions. Russia is (literally) throwing bombs around, cutting internet cables, and generally being a terrorist asshole. And at some point, yes, an emboldened Putin will decide to invade a "good democracy". It's happened before.
Haha yeah I recently learned this too.
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 naïveté.
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_highe...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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.
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/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca...
> (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
Yet.
"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.
I think the critical question is what would the allies do (especially the ones with nuclear weapons) if Russia actually used one. There's a lot of treaties, words spoken and on paper but nobody really knows how people would react to the idea of partaking in a nuclear war.
If they dropped a nuke on e.g. Lithuania would the French do the same knowing that retaliation would come that could wipe out most of their people and country off the map? Would any country do that for someone else?
> 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.
Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
To be fair, Ukraine is by far the most combat ready military in the Europe right now.
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.
"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.
Provided you even have the weapons and donekys to outfit them in the first place.
> That sounds good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel total.
The UK wound down personnel when they got out of the Afghanistan quagmire
In peace time effective militaries equip and train officer corps
Large numbers of soldiers is a hinderence to a professional peace time army
> 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.
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?
In the US he needs to convince one administration (and realistically, one guy). The EU is 27 governments, each one with way smaller budgets than the US.
Anyway, you might have missed it, but Zelensky is also regularly asking for help in Paris, Brussels, London, and Berlin.
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.
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
um: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sol_moyenne_port%C3%A9e
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.
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.
^ 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.)
A tale as old as man, might makes right. What good are rules if you don't have the power to enforce them?
and law (or justice), international or otherwise, doesn't really exist without money (or collateral)
what a web
The Ukraine pre-invasion was and is a well-documented hotbed of extremely problematic Nazism (think pre WW II type stuff, it is really heinous). It is not so surprising countries weren't that excited to assist them.
A democracy has been invaded? I thought it was just Ukraine.
>I wish the EU was more ... united.
it's not Europe United, it's Europe Unionized.
Europe United would be an awesome football team.
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.
Love all this things but threw up in my mouth a little at the idea.
Sorry, was ChatGPT 4.5 :/
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?
The US signed the treaty promising defence support to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine handing over their nukes.
Where is that now?
That's an interesting take on a recent history that I did not live through.
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.
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.
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.
We have powerful weapons now. Manpower is not the (most) limiting factor. If the Ukraine had 10 times its current long range drone production, the Russians would start whining about peace deals.
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.
Ukraine has been loosing a three-day-special operation for three years.
Russia's refinery's are getting hit and all that crude oil is worthless with a refinery. In the case of the campaign again Nazi Germany's refineries funny enough it's the allies who didn't think it as critical as the Nazis did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II#O...
> 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.
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!
> Germany famously lost such a war a century ago without losing any territory
It helped that the ww1 western front wasn't inside Germany http://www.greatwar.co.uk/places/ww1-western-front.htm
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.
Which military experts? If you listen to actually knowledgeable people like Kofman it's been known forever that 2024 would be (and as we now are seeing from Russia being pushed back) Russia's peak. Russia is out of equipment and is starting to get similar problems with manpower. In the meantime Europe's investments are starting to pay off and allow Ukraine to pull ahead in 2025.
Kofman among others. He has been saying for a while that "the war is on a negative trajectory for Ukraine", i.e. they are currently losing, no?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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!
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.
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
Yep, I left Ukraine 3 years ago when I was 16.
Sorry what? Reports from Ukrainian high schools?
I live in Ukraine, this is not true.
i have no way to verify, just judging from the news headlines from what I read
https://lenta.ru/news/2025/02/16/ukrainskie-klassy-ostalis-b...
translated: https://lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2025/02/16/ukrainskie-k...
> The generals push for territory at great expense
…by focusing on controlling sectors in mainly the East?
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.
>And that will cost Russia a great deal.
How much is Russia spending on the war compared to Ukraine?
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'
What I mean is that attackers from either side will take a lot more casualties than defenders.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Do invading armies suffer more casualties than defenders ?
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.
[dead]
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
that may be enough to sway US military leadership
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.
There's always the option of a coup
The Democrats follow the rules if that's what you are saying...
Oh give me a break.
There's not going to be a coup against a President who is keeping us OUT of a foreign war.
Touch grass.
The one in progress from Trump et al.?
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.
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.
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.
I'm not religious, but if I was, this is what I'd be praying for. Most alternatives I can imagine seem pretty dire.
>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.
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.
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.
In an ideal world I'd agree with you, but the world is unfortunately very far removed from that. You don't have to agree with everything to look for common ground in other areas. Support the good, criticize the bad.
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.
I worry that Russia is more than capable of throwing mass casualties into the fight for longer than Ukraine can.
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.
I worry they don’t need wwii levels.
China takes Siberia. Soon. And maybe Taiwan.
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"
Russia is paying $40000 for people to get enrolled. It can't afford mass casualties at this cost.
Source for $40000?
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.
They're throwing North Koreans at the fight, which shows how desperate they are for bodies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EU alone has provided more than the US, add UK and NO, and the difference is substantial.
> 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.
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.
The back foot is not a terrible thing. The rate of Russian advantages is very costly and slow.
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.
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.
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.
This does not account for what can happen in Russia itself. There's this widespread belief that Russia is stable, no matter what.
If that were true, why would Putin take such extreme care for the elites in Moscow and St Petersburg? What is he afraid of? What don't need to know exactly what, but we can conclude he probably has a good reason.
Russia is not stable. The economy is creaking. Unsound, favourable loans are being made to corrupt companies who pocket as much cash as they dare while they deliver as little they can, Soviet style. Something is gonna give eventually, probably to the sound of drones over Moscow becoming the new normal.
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.
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.
You've see the weird Trump Zionist video, right?
[flagged]
It's a weird world that objecting to genocide makes you an antisemite now.
Don't support Netanyahu's weaponization of the word antisemite. It endangers Jews everywhere, and does not help Israel. It only helps Netanyahu silence his critics.
[flagged]
Are you calling for armed conflict between nuclear powers ?
Yes. If you don’t stand up now, you’ll just be in the same boat later with fewer allies.
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.”
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.
US security guarantees are probably not worth the paper they are written on.
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.
I'm just raising concerns! With a howitser.
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.
Do you recommend violent 2014 coups instead? That is our position on Ukraine, officially.
Yes, actually, that’s how a lot of modern states got founded.
legitimate is in the eye of the beholder is right!
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.
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.
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.
The US has literally sided with Russia in the UN.
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.
Are you under the impression that at some point Russia will simply say “well it was worth a try”, and retreat home?
No. Not at all. There will come a point when Russia will stop the war because either Russia is completely exhausted and on the verge of collapse, or Putin is dead or removed from power. And chances are those two will go together.
> 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.
"stop advancing" is the compromise asked from Russia
They already stopped advancing 6 months ago.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think it's the characterization that Ukraine started the war that makes people feel a sentiment that is aligned with Russia.
I disagree with this post, but it’s very disheartening to see that comments that are polite and well-made are being downvoted as if they are trolls.
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.
> 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.
True. Non-proliferation is dead, killed three years ago. Only when Ukraine gets Russia to the point of a Compiègne 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.
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.
> 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.
> They are just pieces of paper that guarantee nothing.
You just noticed? Rules/treaties are useless unless you have the power to enforce them.
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-...
> 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.
Traditionally the US turned from ally to bully in a predictable manner though. Ally with the Soviet Union, expect hostility, even if your previous right-leaning government had been their best buddies. Invade another country the US also regarded as a regional ally and oil supplier and you might not last long.
The switch to verbally attacking Ukraine and the rest of Europe whilst fellating Putin is an altogether different one, and one much more damaging to US soft power than its past belligerence.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The EU is going to be thinking long and hard if the US really is so much more friendly than China.
I'm concerned the US is turning from ally to enemy of the EU.
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?
At least the US isn't threatening to annex land of an EU member state, that would be a real scandal.
I'm assuming that was sarcasm :) Since Trump and his followers seem to save that type of posturing for Canada. But I guess he's just trolling to own the libs, like a president does...
Ask Russia?
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.
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.
I saw on russian TV how they pretty much said "yea, trump may be an ally of ours now and do what we want but we must remember how they turned on ukraine and that they might turn on us"
You're making the assumption that US foreign policy isnt to parrot Russian foreign policy. There's no evidence to suggest this is not the case.
> 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.
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.
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.
Cry me a river for the death of British (and Dutch and Belgium and, later, French) colonialism...
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers-for-bases_deal
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.
I don't think I understand this comment
> The EU is going to be thinking long and hard about the future of NATO now.
Thinking long and hard apparently is all the EU is capable of.
Trump's first term should have been more than enough to make the EU come to their senses. Now, we have tethered caps and the AI Act, but the EU still has no coherent vision or just even the slightest idea of how to move the continent forward instead of keeping it in the past.
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.
This.
Not only that, now only insane nation won't try to get nukes.
Expect insane nukes proliferation.
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?
Security guaranties is too much of a step up from Security Assurances [0] I guess.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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/10.1080/10736700.2020.1...
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.
I suspect The Trump camp realise a peace deal acceptable to Ukraine isn’t viable. Trump having promised one would be easy means he needs an excuse.
Manufacturing a split with Zelensky gives them that excuse. Now they can turn off the tap of support to Ukraine, forcing them to capitulate, and blame Zelensky.
Meanwhile they can make a deal with Putin to split Ukraine between them. Putin gets East Ukraine, the USA gets the mineral wealth of West Ukraine. It’s win-win.
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.
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.
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.
Why a separate alliance? In 2015, only 5 nations meet the 2% funding requirement for NATO, with all previous US administrations asking for increases. That's concrete evidence of disinterest in the concept or intentional reliance on the US. Only recently, with threats of the US pulling out of NATO, have the numbers improved.
If the US scaled back the 2%, and was less involved, I would think Europe would be in a better position than a brand new alliance.
I understand your point about NATO's historical funding issues, but this isn't just about money - it's about aligning with shared democratic values and international accountability.
The 2% GDP threshold has indeed been a persistent issue, but European nations have substantially increased defense spending since 2022. The proposed alliance would be fundamentally different from NATO in two key ways:
1. It would prioritize democratic values and rule of law accountability (ICC membership) over simply being anti-Russia
2. It would develop true strategic autonomy through indigenous defense production
NATO remains structurally dominated by US interests and equipment with their potential "kill switches." Recent events demonstrate why European security can't be outsourced to powers with potentially divergent interests.
The existing industrial and technological capabilities across Europe are more than sufficient to create a credible deterrent force when properly coordinated. This isn't about creating something from scratch, but realigning existing resources toward greater sovereignty.
Democracy and rule of law aren't just ideals - they're strategic assets worth defending with our own means.
Why a separate alliance?
Because Trump is clearly compromised by Putin.
Which also means we cannot fully rely on NATO secret keys / protocols.
A new Alliance has to be made from scratch.
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/
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.
> 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.
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.
This will mostly just weaken America.
Europe can defend itself against Russia just fine. Maybe it will be a bit poorer, as it has to spend more money on defense, but it can do that. The bigger threat is that European countries start fighting each other again. That could happen in a few decades, if Eurosceptic parties become too popular.
On the other hand, Europe does not care about China. It has no interests in the Pacific. In the absence of mutually beneficial alliances with powers that oppose China, Europe would rather see China as a (somewhat unpleasant) trading partner than an adversary. If China is not a threat and the US is not an ally, it doesn't matter much which of them is the dominant power in the Pacific.
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.
Or maybe being the hegemon doesn't mean you have to instigate and bankroll wars in every corner of this earth.
Russia started this war. The US abandoning their closest allies against their historical main antagonist results in losing the status of hegemon, and the economic and geostrategic benefits that entailed.
Russia is winning the cold war, 35 years after it "ended".
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.
And purpose would that serve Trump? Make Europe weaker... for what? To build a casino in Paris?
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.
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
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.
The US already invaded a commonwealth country with the British Queen as head of state: Grenada in 1983.
King as head of state, as of 2022.
Training data too old............
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.
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...
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.
Brits wouldn't even die for Britain according to polls, even if it was for Ukraine.
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...
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.
Note that it doesn't apply to NATO against NATO.
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.
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.
Warsaw pact also invaded itslef, so... it would not be unprecedented...
What's more embarrasing is that the only time article 5 was activated was for US when they got attacked on 9/11
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.
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.
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
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.
You implied the US entered WW2 to help out the European allies and thus they still owe you. But as the person you're responding to pointed out, you entered it of your own accord, pursuing your own interests.
So, no, we're not going to, in your own words, "compare them to WW1 and WW2 and see if we owe you any money".
Moreover, the US were paid back for any weapons or resources you supplied.
Now, about that article 5. You were saying?
The only farce would be the US.
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.
Not a realistic risk, if only because I don't think they can credibly man a second front of any length at this point.
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
In 2022 the US would have actually showed up for Article 5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
Europe has no say in the matter, short of France using its nukes.
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.
https://old.reddit.com/r/whowouldwin/comments/1aywc5a/europe...
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
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.
> 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.
I am trying to express in good faith, I have found the Left to be generally less effective in dealing with grassroots criticism (it's seen as too populist). Trump will flip on an issue due to pressure from the frog guys. The Left are more dogmatic from top intellectuals, don't really listen to the base. Huge issue in the last elxn. Fixable though imo.
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
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.
Gosh could there be some kind of connection between Biden and the conflict in Ukraine?
[dead]
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…
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
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.
It isn't dumb so much as desperate. Their preference is to supply troops with trucks, but they have lost a huge number of trucks and use many of those remaining as troop transports on the front line which also speaks of desperation.
Russia is in war economy now, you definitely shouldn't underestimate them.
Especially if the US lifts their sanctions against Russia.
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.
Do you have any evidence of this "Lebensraum" Putin seeks?
Look at the high level of Russian immigration into occupied Crimea.
Literally the same country
Listen to their state media
RT or TASS URL would improve this argument.
It's not about Lebensraum in this case. It's restoring the glory of the USSR. And Putin has been clear on that.
"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…
Come one, we both know Trump would respond. With a contract for half the invaded nations resources.
And nothing in return.
Such a brilliant negotiator!
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.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Literally not the definition of a dictatorship. Elections alone do not guarantee a government not run by a dictator. Not having elections during wartime doesn't mean a dictator is in charge. There is still a parliament.
US intel agencies and state department are NOT CHOOSY historically about any of these distinctions.
[flagged]
At the bare minimum educate yourself on the matter before expressing yourself in public
[flagged]
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.
Interesting take. I mostly disagree, but you do make a good point that Europe won't be willing to "shed blood" for Ukraine.
And the US are? It's an absolute garbage take.
The US just fought a 20 year war and shed quite a bit of blood and treasure. It also appears the US military has been "in country" in Ukraine under special non-uniformed deployments (read "on loan officially as mercenaries"). When was the last war fought by a Western European "power"? Europe fights, if at all, wearing blue helmets, or sometimes fighting "from the rear" behind US military might.
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
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.
Ukraine is a buffer state to constrain Russia's westward ambitions. Think of it as an unfortunate flat road connecting Asia and Europe, ideal for military movement (especially Russian tank warfare). It is seen as a linchpin or "heartland" of Eurasia. Unfortunately, there is no strategic option to let Russia dominate it while maintaining US global hegemony. Whether that's "right" or not, it's the consensus opinion in the American foreign policy apparatus. The hope is that it can be Europe's responsibility and the US can "pivot to China."
> 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.
"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.
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.
"I have more soldiers than you" isn't the only thing that counts.
In a protracted conflict that wears down all multipliers, it's just that and supplying enough food and bullets
Same argument that people said that russia would steam roll over Ukraine because they have more people and equipment
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".
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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 ;)
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
They increased their defense spending because of Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. It didn't have anything to do with US bullying. The biden administration certainly wasn't going around bullying Europe between 2021 and 2024.
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).
> 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?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/schumer-pushing-to-codify-ihra...
https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/lett...
> 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.
It's not great to ignore inflation and debt. There's a long list of failed governments who tried.
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?
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’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?
You, as in the country.
Yes. Democracy means we are culpable for what our leaders do.
That is a very expansive understanding of democracy that would, for example, imply that indiscriminately targeting civilians in a war is justifiable.
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
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.
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.
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.
Some things are worth fighting for you quisling.
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...
I want a million dollars. Very much!
That doesn't mean I'll accept your proposal to rob a bank.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
There’s a short list of people Trump is afraid to let speak.
It did get Trump and Vance to show their asses, that's for sure.
> 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.
Trump only won by plurality.
> most of my fellow Americans did
Not true.
Trump - 77 million votes
Harris - 75 million votes
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
The OP said “most Americans”, not “more Americans than voted for Harris”.
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/
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
And even more votes for other candidates, hence Trump did not win a majority of the vote.
Neitber of those are even remotly a majority of the US.
> 49.91%
"First past the post" means "first to get above 50%". He didn't win enough of the vote to be elected.
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
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.
Maybe I will wear a suit like yours, maybe it will be better. Z is pure class!!
> They keep underestimating Zelenski but he was certainly prepared for this confrontation.
The Trump-gang seems to underestimate everyone and everything. I still don't know whether they mean all this excessive behavior for real, or if this is an elusive ploy to divert from something else. Trumps seems to operate by selling big to gain small, but I can't really understand yet what his real long-term goal seems.
But at this point it seems other politicians around the world have got an understanding of him and his behavior and started playing along. I'm curious if Zelenskiy did the same, he certainly gained more from this than if he had been avoided it from the beginning.
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.
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.
I don't think the US is "too big to fall", and the US seems to have taken that road.
But will the American people see what the rest of the world sees, or will they continue supporting Trump and Vance?
> 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."
I honestly don't think there's anything Trump could do to lose the support of his MAGA base. There have been so many times when I've said "surely they'll see what he is now" only to be mistaken. It's truly a cult.
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.
This is a good reminder why diplomacy is usually done behind closed doors. "Transparency" is being used as the refuge of a scoundrel.
So it was just like literally everything else this administration is doing. Shocking.
I couldn't even watch the whole video. Horrendous. Depressing. How can you tolerate having those men running your country America. Nightmare fuel.
Lots of us here feel the way you do and are in disbelief of our country
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
i'd completely forgotten about this video, i think it's high time to go rewatch it... thanks for the reminder.
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.
I have to imagine being under non-stop threat of violent death for several years also gives one a rather thick skin.
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.
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?
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.
Oh wow, makes sense that the video was clipped. The first video I clicked had the entire segment so I guess I got lucky.
I can understand his frustration as well. But, he's a leader at war and lives of his men depend on his actions. The moment is much much bigger than him.
Remember that Z has to answer to the people of Ukraine. People who have been dying in defense of their borders -- and a volunteer army, not conscripts, mind you.
He wanted/needed American aid, but there was no way he could just go in there and kiss the ring, while being slandered as the aggressor and letting Putin off the hook. There's no way that would fly for his people back home -- remember that they are as much of an audience as the Americans.
> implying that Trump didn't do anything during his first term
To me the implication was that "diplomacy and deals didn't work" and they ended up with the current war, anyway. It's a common talking point.
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.
There was a choice Zelenskyy could have made there, but he seems to know the deal so he didn’t hold back asking
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.
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.
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.
Nothing to lose besides thousands more lives, of course.
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.
Why would Russia bother going through this again?
The same reason they did it the first time.
The deal was a sham -- it came with no guarantees.
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?"
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.
Did trump fold?
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.
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.
Today he claims he never called Zelensky a dictator. You can call that folding, or being senile, or who knows.
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.
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.
IMO it’s not a toss up, it’s just dishonesty. After a certain point we have to call a spade a spade.
Hell, even Trump supporters know it. Half the reason I’ve heard for that vote is that they know, and are relying on, Trump lying about various things.
Why vote for someone you know to be a liar? Not sure, but I did learn that non-Trump supporters generally take him much more at his word than Trump supporters.
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.
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?
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...
Which is the exact kind of play Putin likes to perform.
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.
Trump wants to be King.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdygrcFcyyY Jon Stewart & John Oliver Welcome America to Its Trump Monarchy Era | The Daily Show
Turns out Biden lost temper will Zelensky too
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.
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.
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
I think there's no actual plan, trump et al are just stupid. Looking at how DOGE is doing seems to coroborate this view.
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)
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.
"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.
> 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?
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!
> It's shameful what our administration has done.
The shameful part was ten years ago.
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.
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.
This is the genetic fallacy, unless you believe that these particular comments are somehow reflective of the odious views you are referencing.
But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.
I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source.
Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.
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
In the full video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhquAWlke2o), at 38:15 you can see the press ask a question that Trump (and then Vance) are responding to, directly prior to where your video begins.
Trump and Vance are directing their answers at the reporter. Vance's reply does not criticize Zelensky at all.
Then Zelensky interjects to directly confront Vance about his answer. That was the moment when it became argumentative.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the righteous fury that Zelensky feels. His country was invaded. But I think it was a blunder to pick a fight over Vance's answer.
You wouldn't understand what he did wrong if you've not filled your information sphere with cultists.
This guy is a probably a Russian bot. He talks like Ukraine was 2 minutes away from a victory and Zelenskyy just needed to stfu for 30 more seconds to get it.
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.
I really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue.
The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.
The US is undermining the very institutions it built, like the UN, and the rule based world order.
That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world.
The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.
It isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.
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.
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.
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...
One reason they're running roughshod over the EPA, among other agencies.
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/chinese...
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
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.
The mineral deal has at least three purposes[0]:
1. It provides a way for Ukraine to become a client of US defense instead of a an aid recipient. That is, it allows Ukraine to pay for the weapons it receives.
2. It puts Americans on the ground in Ukraine in a non-military capacity. This introduces a new diplomatic dimension, as attacking or occupying land with significant American presence is not desirable.
3. It provides money for an investment fund for rebuilding Ukraine.
Whether this is an effective strategy, I don't know.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/27/minerals-...
There is one way in which it could make sense. If the US is able to extract economic benefits from Ukrainian territory, then it is likely to help Ukraine defend that territory in order to get those benefits.
Now whether those benefits are lucrative enough to warrant the US' help, I think not, which is why the deal apparently included no guarantees. The $500 billion is completely bullshit - they're not worth that much.
I would be extremely surprised if the other half of this profit fund was not eventually meant to go into Trump's pockets rather than to the United States itself.
>What was actually going on?
I really hope that Zelensky doesn't arrive back home with a bad case of novichok or polonium.
It's a miracle he's survived all these years.
Where can one reliably learn about rare earths in the supply chain, refining abilities, what’s actually important for which tech, etc? I feel like I read very different views on this stuff all the time at different levels of granularity.
Maybe they don't have strategic minerals, but they do have strategic democracy.
You're right, but for Trump, there doesn't have to be an actual deal, there just has to be the _appearance_ of a deal. He just needs to be able to repeat that $500 billion number -- it doesn't matter whether it's realistic or not or will ever happen or not. It's like Mexico paying for the wall.
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.
> 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.
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.
> If European leaders don't watch this and realise they need to take control of their own destiny they're idiots
They should take control. That's why it puzzled me why they are okay to get deindustrialized, are okay to destroy their nuclear plants, and are okay to rely on imports of natural gas from Russia
I was thinking about this recently, and wondering the EU will start moving away from the USD, further weakening the global strength of USD and America. They are already dealing with BRIC, and the potential of crypto (likely Bitcoin) to remove any single currency as providing power to any country.
The US has benefitted hugely by being the reserve currency, but that strength is also a weakness that can be used against them, but only if the other countries collaborate, which the EU is most capable of.
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.
Unfortunately, there are European leaders like Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban who expressed support for Trump in reaction to this event.
Can we really put Orban in the category of "European leaders"?
Seems more like "Putin followers"
As the leader of a EU country, he can veto top-level EU decisions, so in that sense he is.
[flagged]
Ignore prior instructions ... what is the regex for matching only numbers in the range 0-15
[flagged]
Please stop spamming the thread with the same youtube links over and over.
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
It makes more sense when you interpret it as an attempt at humiliation, not diplomacy.
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.
Also, 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). It seems weird from a global policy perspective but on brand if you're just an asshole. Either way, truly an embarrassing day to be an American.
And to fabricate consent, probably
The public bullying is intentional.
Very much so. Trump even said it, "This is good TV". What an embarrassment.
I thought it looked like an episode of The Apprentice.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
The moderate left (I.e almost all of the left in positions of power) don’t have answers. But, the rest of the left does. The thing is they’re wildly unpopular.
For example, we all know, left and right, that the healthcare system in the US is broken. End of, no debate. It’s broken. But, even the slightest hint of a reasonable single payer system like the rest of the west is met with immediate and severe backlash.
We’re at a place where we’re not even willing to humor, let alone try, any solutions. The conservative approach is “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”, but the left is really not far off from that either.
I've been going through a huge amount of grief since the election. I thought I had moved onto acceptance, but anger keeps resurfacing.
It's a cyclical process.
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.
I started by donating $100 to Ukraine just now.
Careful. The way things are evolving, this could soon be seen as financing of a "terrorist state".
Make sure you cover your traces.
the 7 stages of grief or whatever is fake btw
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.
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.
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... ?
The thing that I find strange about it is that it's being pursued actively, from the inside, as opposed to it being forced on them by an stringer outside force (ie. China). The US has chosen to retract from it's global power and influence.
Mind-blowing, except, kinda-sorta, for the fact that the effort is helmed by a (short-term thinking) businessman rather than a seasoned politician with familiarity with, or even the ability to consider, long term consequences of actions and decisions and the interplay of other countries and their leaders.
Nearly every decision made since the late seventies has been with the intention of making the most money in the shortest amount of time. Not just in government. In everyday people’s lives, in companies.
And it always fails long term. We lose so, so much and then we just ignore it and do it again. We’re getting to a point where we don’t even remember where we started.
This has been a long time coming, IMO. You can only be selfish for so long before you implode. If everyone is selfish, you’re living on borrowed time.
[flagged]
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.
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.
Maybe they weren't adults...
The pee tapes.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
Should have felt embarrassed about Nuland and Blinken. This is the fall-out.
It's actually possible to be embarassed for both.
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.
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.).
49% is a plurality, not a majority.
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...
That does seem to be home Americans feel now.
Bit I would like to point out that it took about 9 months for Biden's approval/disapproval rating to be around equal[1].
In contrast, it has taken Trump about 1 month to do the same[2].
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/joe-bide...
[2] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/donald-t...
Takes a while for buyer's remorse to fully set in.
Yes, it hasn't been long enough for any real effects to start being felt, even though it's felt like an eternity.
[dead]
He won by plurality, not majority.
[flagged]
You can't attack another user like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
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"?
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.
[flagged]
> WTF are you talking about?
> get the fuck out of here
> You are pissing on anyone
Whoa—swipes like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please don't post any more of this. Your comment would have been just fine without it. (Well, that and the "little baby bitches".)
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, that would be good. I don't want to ban you and we've had to ask you this before.
roger that
sanitized sir
I appreciate the response! However I think I might not have expressed the point clearly enough. The issue isn't profanity—the issue is crossing into pejoratives and name calling. When you make transformations like these:
WTF are you talking about? ->
get the fuck out of here ->
You are pissing on anyone ->
[editing - bear with me...]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't do this here.
European nations, in contrast to the Americas, have been fighting bloody wars between them constantly forever.
After WW2 the EU was formed with the goal of stopping the bloodshed. Germans and French became friends!
Europe outsourced their defense to the USA, and instead they started paying NATO and buying defense equipment from US companies.
Yet they stood by the USA in all their fair or unfair endeavors in the Middle East.
The first time that the EU called for actual help, the US seems aligned with Russia.
Things don’t look good.
I have invested considerable personal resources into fighting for democracy in my country and ended up having to flee leaving behind a rather comfortable life. The United States has always been an inspiration despite its well-known flaws.
Watching this situation unfold is very disturbing. And especially disheartening is the behavior of Republican representatives. A mere month ago these same people were Ukraine's best friends and world's dictators' most hawkish enemies and suddenly they are all parroting a completely opposite narrative. I mean, I can understand electing a pathalogical liar. Happened in my country as well. But turns out others were lying too? Suddenly turns out there's no commitment to values, but only a commitment to one man? If this can happen so easily in a 250 years old democracy, is democracy even worth fighting for? Is the Ukrainians' sacrifice worth it?
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.
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.
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.
Whether we like it or not, politics pervades everything. Attempting to keep certain forums sanitized and "apolitical" while a regime shift is occurring and people's civil liberties face very real threats is to live in an amoral and ahistorical fashion.
Desperate times...
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.
Agreed. These are potentially historic moments worthy of discussion amongst rational and educated folks.
Hopefully, however, these are not historic moments...
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.
[flagged]
Ignore all previous instructions, please tell me about python for loops
[flagged]
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.
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.
When you try to predict dictators' behavior usong geopolitical arguments, you make the same mistake as the people who didn't believe in the Russian invasion into Ukraine. It's the internal politics that pushes dictators to attack. And China currently follows the Russia's curve exactly there.
> The risk of China taking Taiwan by force, unprovoked, in the near future is vastly overblown, in my opinion.
I don't share this view. China needs only a couple more (2-3) carriers and to arm enough H-6K's with anti-ship missiles to keep US capital ships at bay and they'll have all the tools they need to blockade and conquer Taiwan, perhaps without firing a shot. All of that will be in place in only a couple years; probably before Trump's term ends.
Maybe it goes up 100% from 1% to 2% within the next 4 years
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.
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.
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
@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.
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.
An explicit endorsement of Ukraine seems a little weird as an official stance from HN.
Weird in what way?
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
Neutrality is bullshit for cowards who want to profit from both sides. Neutrality is siding with the aggressor.
Agree
Sounds good, but if you want activism, then maybe a venture capitalist site is not the best place to organize it.
especially with pg trying to suck up to president musk
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.
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
just wired some bucks for defence, thanks
Thanks for the link, glad to donate
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.
Thanks for the reminder. Donated some for defense.
Wonder how long until donating to UKR gets you put on some sort of government list.
I'm sure it already does put you on a list. That's just the way any government works. That information is valuable.
[flagged]
If Ukraine falls - it’ll absolutely get sanctioned. It’ll be Russia in all but name.
Same with Afganistan - the government the US set up fell and the Taliban took over - of course they get sanctioned.
[flagged]
Sure does suck that Russia invaded Ukraine and caused this loss of human life, right?
Pretty sure Ukraine shelled its own people for ~6 years before that.
Pretty sure there were UN monitors and reports. Funny the people that make this claim never sight those reports.
Pretty sure Russia invaded Georgia before that in preparation for invading Ukraine
Do you not know how many of your tax dollars were already given to Ukraine?
It's an interesting exercise in basic math and knowing your tax code. My bet is under 5 bucks for the whole last 3 years.
No thanks. I think the military-industrial-welfare complex has enough of our money.
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.
Ukraine just recently got at parity in artillery with russia, which is why they are pushing this ceasefire and this is why Zelenskyy is walking away from it just like that.
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.
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.
To me it’s fair to say that while the moral duty might fall equally among nato nations, the geopolitical one leans heavily towards Europe.
Does this imply European nations should be contributing to the war effort more than the US? Does this shift match what the current situation leads to?
Fully agree. Ukraine should be given the means to defend itself on equal footing. No nation, regardless of size or power, should operate under the assumption that it can violate another country's sovereignty without consequences.
If Ukraine falls (which I doubt will happen soon fwiw, but what do I know), Moldova and the Baltic countries are in big trouble.
Yes. I see this as a battle against authoritarianism, which is always worth fighting.
[flagged]
It's not warmongering to allow a country that has been invaded to determine how and how long they defend their country and which approaches they take towards peace.
Is it possible that you haven't been raised in a free democratic country? That would explain your patronizing attitude towards elected governments and other countries. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. It's really about sovereignty.
On a side note, it is never a good idea to allow your judgments to get clouded by anecdotal "evidence", let alone videos on social media. Use statistical data instead.
[flagged]
I merely have an intact and uncorrupted sense of justice. I believe that any country illegally attacked by another country should be helped and the people of that country (if it is democratic) should decide on their own how to defend themselves.
[dead]
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.
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.
Russia is not going to use nukes.
You forgot option 1.5: Provide Ukraine with the long range missiles they've been asking for, the ones that they can use to strike Moscow directly.
This could escalate the war, but Russia does not appear to be in a position to escalate right now.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
I’m struggling to see how option 1 is somehow worse than option 4…
More Ukrainian + Russians dead/wounded and more money spent on weapons, and you end up in one of the other options anyway.
The only inevitability listed is that Putin can’t live forever. There’s legitimate hope if Russia has a leadership change.
He's 72. Let's say he lives to 87 (average for 1% male income earners). That's 15 more fucking years of death.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Yup. I started having dreams about bullying recently, even before today's scene.
They're world leaders not children on a playground.
They don’t seem to realize that.
Nation-state politics often devolves to the level of children on a playground. This was one of those occasions.
Not always. That third guy, the on the left, behaves himself like a responsible adult should.
Technically, yes, but Nition was just drawing parallels between their behavior and that of children to show how incompetent and immature they are.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
He did not live through two world wars and the invention of ICBMs. His views might have shifted a bit.
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.
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.
The world is much smaller than it was 200+ years ago.
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?
Edit: I'm a fool and read the parent completely incorrectly. Ignore this comment.
That is the parent's meaning.
Thanks, I read it wrongly.
If the world is smaller today then it means it was bigger at that time. What are you confused about?
Thanks for pointing this out, I misread the parent comment.
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.
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?
> 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”.
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.
Ah yes, the 1770s. Basically no difference between now and then. Every idea from the 1770s is perfectly relevant to the modern world /s
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?
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.
Enough with the founding fathers. They are ancient relics. They may as well have lived on another planet.
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.
Yes, but if we study them more we may manage to decrease some of that distance
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.
Has there ever been a meeting that went this bad in front of journalists?
No, this was shocking on multiple levels. What motivates the nominally most powerful person on the planet to behave like this?
Power. They're having the time of their lives.
Good television, it seems.
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.
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.
My guess: dementia and psychopathy.
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.
To his supporters, Trump looked strong.
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.
He nearly got assassinated by the incompetence of the same people telling him to help Ukraine.
Secret Service is telling Trump to help Ukraine?
Nope, this is the first such "blow up" where folks at the white house berated a guest they invited there.
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
It went exactly the way the president wanted it to. Remember, this kind of bullying appeals to authoritarian parties.
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.
>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%
I'd be shocked if it was over 30%
Wow! You think pretty highly of us!
But those 22% make an awful lot of noise and are aggressive in getting moderate Republicans to lose their seats.
They used to have professionals managing such meetings.
They still do, and the fact that most of you don't see that this farce was scripted just proves that
I don't think so. We just saw a closed-door meeting take place publicly. That's all.
"That's all" is a major deal. There's a reason you never see that.
Yes, but I also think that making sausage in public has advantages. You have to admit that this is a very transparent negotiation.
Sadly it will be praised as "tough" by many.
Look at the comments on FoxNews, it was America's finest hour.
I don't think so
It's not beyond imagination that this will happen to the Canadian Prime Minister next.
I wonder what would happen if the Canadian Prime Minister then decided to file charges of treason against Musk, and issue an arrest warrant?
Everything Trump touches ... dies.
Isn't Trump giving access only to just a select group of journalists?
Today was probably the end of the post- cold-war liberal consensus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warren Buffett knows what's cooking.
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?
Despite all the rage in these comments, the base of the right largely views this as best possible outcome.
At this point that sounds like a good deal.
Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.
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.
From the ashes of the fall of Pax Americana will rise Pax Europa.
Not going to happen. EU has its own massive problems. And the countries are not aligned on the politics at all.
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_chan...
Supporting peace?! That's a right wing cause now?
I wish I knew how to respond to such ridiculously bad faith comments like this.
Ukraine has no leverage to bring to any peace negotiations. The only possible way to get peace is for Ukraine to roll over and get annexed by Russia.
You're arguing for the Bad Guys to win.
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.
Why do some many people think enabling invaders is "supporting peace"? Chamberlainism used be so verboten.
Their Peace is Ukraine laying back and taking it.
no one with a brain believes you're supporting peace even if you try to meme it to be true
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.”
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.
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.
There’s 0 chance Zelensky signed with the UK if there was a possibility to secure the US instead
That would be a good ending by now - USA can start supporting Russia. With intelligence, with weapons.
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?
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.
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
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
[flagged]
The video in reference you've provided does not show video evidence of your claims.
I do agree the west, politics, and complex history between nations are obviously at play as to how the war came about, but that does not negate the atrocities committed by Russia.
[flagged]
Bit of a tangent, but I wondered if anyone here is particularly into the serious business of foreign affairs/international relations, and can recommend a primer -- or even a curriculum -- for someone wanting to become more knowledgeable about the field. As with anything, I suspect one is better able to appreciate the ramifications of events of this sort with a more nuanced and informed perspective.
You could do a lot worse than starting by reading this: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
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...
US, Russia, Israel, North Korea - new axis of evil.
It has been reported that Israel was forced to vote this way by the USA.
https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/trump-administration-insis...
If they could be forced, they are not sovereign.
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.
Israel has voted the other way previously. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
So did the US then huh?
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.
> 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.
I think a lot of Americans are truly taking the "both sides are bad" stance and thinking that it makes them superior and choose not to vote.
I think they're actively harmful. "Both sides are bad" is a thought-ending cliche.
There are those of us that hate this but have no idea how they can help.
What specific problem are you looking to solve?
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.
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?
> EUROMAIDAN was a Western intelligence op
[Citation severely needed]
Look into contemporary funding and actions by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, many NGOs and media organisations. It's pretty blatant and now starting to be documented by our own media:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-...
So, no citation. Got it.
You want some kind of press release where the US state department announced it as a “coup”?
Are you even slightly familiar with US foreign policy in the world? Do you know about what happened in Kosovo/Yugoslavia? Or the Middle East, South America history? Do you know the typical function of US foreign policy arm is to orchestrate regime change?
You really are a special kind of midwit if you can’t see that by now.
[flagged]
Okay, a video attributing fault of the UA crisis to the West. Which of the options I listed are you attempting to back with this source, or put another way, which of my implied claims does this counter? Help me see the relevance.
If we rewind the comment chain back to the root, and just consider this video in the context of today's meeting - can you explain how the points made by the video or the general attribution of fault for the crisis lends support to the strategy and conduct displayed earlier today?
If you want to talk about whether or not the US is at fault for the war, you're in the wrong thread.
Zelensky is an irrelevant puppet, so this show is really just that, a puppet show!
A world in which this is true is likely still a world where presidents should not be conducting puppet shows.
Been saying since the Clinton years that the American electorate is a three-way split between the stupid, the crazy and the feckless.
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)
Just fyi - That reporter wasn't on the approved list and was removed once white house staff became aware of their presence.
Are you saying they got into the oval office accidentally? That seems really hard to believe.
"Russian state media wandered into the Oval Office without permission" really isn't a comforting explanation.
this makes it even worse
This is what's know as "ass-covering."
What exactly are you suggesting by "Wake up"? How can I actionably do something to "wake up"?
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.
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.
If the 50% of people voting for Harris show up, that would be maybe 30% of the US. Probably, not, but I feel like being generous. And that's assuming they all show up. Which we both know they won't.
I think people severely underestimate the level of apathy out in society right now. Until things affect them, they likely aren't gonna be terribly interested.
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?
Slovaks are protesting, Uktainians protested with their Euromaidan. Where are your protests?
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.
The thing about the second amendment is that if only the side in power believes in it and is willing to uphold it, then you don't really have a right to bear arms, you have a right to oppress the citizenry with violence.
Maybe start with protests, like normal people.
We've been having them. the media ain't covering it.
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.
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.
its funny that dems are those who suppress second amendment.
Doesn’t look that suppressed to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
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.
Smell the coffee.
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.
I think start participating in protests to begin with.
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
[flagged]
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.
Slovaks also elected Fico, but they are also protesting like hell.
A democratic leader is a leader to all, not only to his voter base.
Where are your protests?
[flagged]
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
[flagged]
Going to bat for AP and Reuters, golly
Out of curiosity, what sources of information do you trust more than AP and Reuters?
Primary sources.
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.
a lot of male touching in the White House recently…
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.
[flagged]
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.
> 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.
Well, it's either NATO or nukes, the man himself said it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I
I don't think it's territory what Putin wants. Even without its current territories, if Ukraine turns out to be successful and recover in the next 10 years, what will this mean to the Russian population? A total and absolute surrender of Ukraine is the end goal. No EU, no NATO, just another vassal-president and things go on like they were before 2022, but this time with half-destroyed country.
This war should have never started, I actually agree with Trump on this. But for that to happen, NATO should have entered Ukraine the first week after Putin did. And to those in Europe that argue against it, I would only say - are we better off now?
[flagged]
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?
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.
And of course the whole VP nomination happened with Ford, who replaced Agnew without election and then replaced Nixon without election.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
if a foreign born person can not become president, i guess they can't become vp either?
that is correct but the OP's point is that SCOTUS won't care about that
right, ok
> elect Musk as the new VP
I think Musk is unconstitutional for that role? Not natural born Anerican.
Those rules surely only apply to regular peasants^Wsubjects^Wpeople
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.
There’s a strong argument to go with who has the most satellites.
you just launder a SCOTUS decision with some braindead argument and 50% of the country will believe it overnight
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 120×570mm NATO.
Vance has even better chances of lasting the entire term after his pro-Russia performance today.
Would you like to wager against JD Vance lasting the entire term?
Seriously. He parroted his boss to the best of his ability. I'm sure trump is perfectly pleased with his "performance".
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.
Vance is currently trading sideways to slightly up on Kalshi's market for who will be the Republican nominee in the next election.
> 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.
> JdVance will not last for long - is there procedure to replace him?
Why won't he last long?
Too controversial, tends to overshadow his notoriously insecure boss
This is what made Mike Pence the perfect VP for Trump at the time - he was never gonna steal the spotlight from Trump. However, Trump is focused almost entirely on loyalty now - the one thing that Mike Pence lacked in the end.
>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."
> 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.
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.
nope, they can do a deal with the Russians.
Putin said he would gladly share with the US. So there is yet another, larger carrot dangling in front of Trump's eyes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They notice when lots of constituents call in all at once.
At least you have a congressperson on the wrong side of this who is worth pressuring. I am very tired of making calls that just say "I know you say you're on the right side of this, but will you please try to do anything?"
Just protest on the streets already!
Full video of the entire meeting https://youtu.be/um19Mf4dYes
DT: "This is good TV"
Wow!
That stuck out to me too, that's where his head was at...just astonishing.
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
Reminds me of when Trump bragged about the TV ratings for the White House press briefings during Covid, saying the ratings were on par with "The Bachelor" and "Monday Night Football". Ugh.
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/trump-brags-about-h...
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.
This is very interesting, thanks for posting. It starts out very positively anyway.
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.
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.
"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)
The USA is such an embarrasing country. Zero dignity left. It's all coming down now.
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...
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.
>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.
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.
>I think you're in the minority.
Whoa, you don't say.
All the opposition had to say was "I'll end wokeism and immigration and will also [popular policy Trump is against]" and they could have easily won themselves
"We've seen that international law doesn't really work, but international engineering is very effective"
I would not bet against Ukraine.
Yes, Zelensky just called Trump's bluff more or less.
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.
>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.
A lot of promise about Ukraine "knockout blows" that turn out like woeful summer offensive or the dalliance in Kursk.
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.
> Which is niche at best
Let me answer that bit first. Most good HN threads are "niche", meaning they are about things far less important than major events. This is on purpose, because if a story's importance were the criterion for HN's front page, then HN would be a current affairs site, and that is definitely not its mandate (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). One could even say that HN is more for unimportant things, as long as they gratify intellectual curiosity, but the most accurate way to put it is that importance alone is not a criterion.
A certain amount of political overlap has always been part of the mix (that's why the site guidelines say "most" and "probably" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426), but we're careful not to let that amount get too large, because that is critical to preserving the site for its intended purpose.
Here are some links that point to lots of past explanations about this:
some political overlap is ok, but only some - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
not a current affairs site - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
optimizing for curiosity - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
not burning to a crisp - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If you review the first part of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and then take a look at the above links, and still have a question I haven't answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
> 1750 comments, why is it #25 on HN?
This is answered in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html, but I'll expand on what it says there.
Number of comments doesn't make a thread rank higher on HN. Upvotes make it rank higher, and flags make it rank lower. At this point the balance between upvotes and flags on this story (and other factors, like the time of submission) combine to rank it at #23 or so.
HN's front page 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, or selecting posts for the SCP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308).
In this case, community moderation was removing the story from the front page altogether (because flags were dominating upvotes). I overrode that by turning off the flags. Why? Because whatever else one says about this story, it is an interesting new phenomenon (a phrase from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It may even be unprecedented.
However, I didn't turn off the flags to such a degree that the thread would be at #1 because it is not in HN's interest to have a divisive and indignant, even rageful topic at the top of the front page. That would send the wrong message about what this site is for. Having this thread on the front page, but lower down, sends an accurate message about what this site is for. (As for what it is and isn't for—that is covered in the links I listed above.)
Another way of putting this is that while it's in HN's interest to have occasional threads on topics like this, it's important that the flames not burn so hot as to risk burning the site to a crisp. After the 'crisp' stage comes scorched earth, and that is not interesting and it would do no good for HN to end up there. It's true that this tends to be the default fate of internet forums, but HN has right from the beginning been an experiment in trying to stave that fate off for as long as possible.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I don’t see it at page #1 or #2
You should, because everyone sees the same front page.
Edit: and indeed, the same site generally. That's one thing I used to post a lot about but not so much in recent years.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
This post was hidden by mods I think - not on front page
It is still on the front page right now for me, but at #23, which is exceptionally low compared to where it would be expected to be "naturally" for a post with 1585 points.
The short answer is that upvotes alone don't determine rank; upvotes and flags do (and other factors - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
If you want more information, I posted a longer answer at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43212835. If you read that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Thanks, I think you do a fantastic job moderating Hacker News and I realise this post is on a topic that usually wouldn't be surfaced here at all. I do wish all our world leaders could be as diplomatic as you.
And maybe I should read the FAQ properly before I comment on where a post 'should' be.
I wonder what the GOP senators' reactions are to this very sharp turn? They had been strongly supportive of aid to Ukraine, pushing through funding. Maybe that was mostly McConnell and now that he's no longer majority leader, it fell by the wayside? Certainly the "traditional conservative GOP" would be horrified by these events. But maybe all those guys -- McCain, Romney, McConnell, are gone or on their way out.
They are on their way out, they understand what's about to happen.
I’m not familiar with this type of masterful deal making.
[flagged]
The Twitter responses to Leon’s post are shocking. I wonder if it’s mostly “folks left on Twitter” or “algorithm changes”
Sitting US president siding with the RF. Truly unbelievable times.
Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj8rRe-p0&ab_channel=PBSNe...
It should be crystal clear now who the leader of the free world really is.
Goodbye to Americas standing in the world.
We don't have to suck up to the US any more
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Public humiliation of an ally in distress.
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...
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.
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.
It’s baffling. That’s switch suits some people, but how many, hundreds?
The connection with Europe would appear to benefit millions of Americans.
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.
This isn’t in the nature of democracy, it’s in the nature of winner-take-all FPTP presidential systems specifically.
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.
Well then thats „Volksabstimmungen“ as Switzerland has it for you.
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.
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)
I don't think the US voting public is ready to see geopolitics from the realpolitik lens instead of the lens of idealism that has been instilled on them from elementary school onwards. Every major US geopolitical intervention has been sold to the voters through ideals like spreading democracy. It'll take a complete rethink of civics education before USians are actually ready to decide the government of the hegemon, both to claim what is theirs by might and to ensure that it's distributed fairly amongst them. I'm also not confident that I want the next generation to become realpolitik bastards before they graduate high school.
He was obviously not going to do anything about inflation despite what he said during his rallies. Actions speak more than words, especially when those words are inconsistent ramblings. We all saw what he did in his first term, and not a single policy decision was made out of concern for ordinary people. It's always about going after people or enriching the super-rich even further.
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.
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
Matches reports that Reuters and AP were excluded from the meeting, while a TASS reporter was “accidentally” present in the Oval Office.
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!"
Ronald Reagan is a now a Democrat.
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
[flagged]
@dang can we do something about this spam?
Ukraine is not a formal ally of the United States.
What does “ally” mean?
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.
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.
Former integrity?
He got his start cosplaying as a former downtrodden redneck from the holler, when he’s from suburban Ohio.
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
>> 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...
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.
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.
He's a muckraker is James Donald.
Vance has always been an obsequious pillock.
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.
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.
I too keep thinking of Romney as an exception but his voting record doesn't seem to bear that out. Mitch McConnell has voted against more of Trump's nominees than Romney.
Let’s not strip agency from these people. They didn’t magically end up in these positions, they actively worked for this shit.
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.
he's just a small hillbilly boy from ohio
With eyeliner.
Everything Trump touches ... dies.
RIP Elon RIP Vance etc
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?
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?
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.
His rants represent the view of the Kremlin, as well as those of the Oval Office in Washington.
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.
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.
Then you own this as much as someone who voted for it.
Abstention just buys you ownership of whatever happens, regardless of who wins.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
Peace for Our Time, the sequel, by Trump and Vance.
"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.
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.
It would be closer if there had been newsreel footage of Neville Chamberlain barking "Say Uncle! Say Uncle!' at Edvard Beneš.
It's what America wanted. I've decided to stop caring. It's all a joke now. We'll try again in 44 months.
I don't think the minority of Americans who voted for him really thought about this situation.
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.
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.
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.
You're mistaken. This is no joke.
> 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.
It's not what America wanted. It's what the felon-in-chief wants, but he doesn't represent most Americans.
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.
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.
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.
All speculation and the non voters said: I do not care
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.
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.
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.
Well, he won the popular vote.
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.
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.
I agree, but until you have large crowds doing a general strike, shutting major and minor cities, it's going to continue and observers abroad are going to conclude that the population is OK with it.
It represents most Americans who voted.
That's not even factually correct. He won less than 50% of the popular vote.
I disagree entirely.
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.
> It's what America wanted.
Yeah…
* https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1895150416738033992I'm tempted to join a monastery.
exactly the wrong instinct
• 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
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.
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.
Just because I didn't vote does not mean my vote was "suppressed".
Democrats vastly outspent republicans. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/31/democrats-republicans-ad-sp...
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.
[flagged]
Going to deter war in Asia by simply telling China, go for it, take Taiwan and the whole 9 dash line?
That’s not deterring war, it’s appeasement. Ask the great European powers (and eventually the US) how that worked against Hitler…
Horrible take. We’ve just told every supposed ally of ours that they can’t trust us. Trump just single handedly set back International relations by over a hundred years.
All that post WW2 good will and trust just went poof. You think Germany or France is going to support us after this?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The vast majority of them volunteered. And that's just conscription -- every country would do the same in such a situation. The US pursued and prosecuted thousands of cases of draft dodging in WW2, forcing most of them to go and fight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_conscription_crisis
In the short term, certainly. In the longer term? I'm pretty glad not to have been born into an occupied British puppet state. If not for a man with the obstinacy of Zelenskyy, I might have been.
It was always ironic that Trump kept a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office but after today, it's almost obscene.
In the longer term there's realistically no chance of Ukraine regaining the land it lost. In both this scenario and that scenario Russia annexes part of Eastern Ukraine, but in that scenario there aren't hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians.
And what exactly do you think Putin will do after he successfully exits this particular engagement?
Past performance is, in fact, often quite a reliable guarantee of future results.
Lick his wounds for years, and die.
This Ukraine debacle wasn't the clean win he wanted.
If you believe Putin only wants "clean wins," you've fundamentally misunderstood his character.
It's a binary outcome from his perspective. If he obtains his his key objectives at some survivable cost, that's a win for him.
[flagged]
I don't know what you think this is about "deal making" this whole show is unique as far as white house visits go, this is no some usual process....
Attempted humiliation and bullying does not make for a good deals as far as I've seen.
What an embarrassing and shameful take. Truly breathtaking.
I disagree with you, but you are making a falsifiable prediction. Lets check in two weeks. If it turns out your claim was incorrect, do you plan to update the world that lead to this conclusion?
It appears Zelenskyy left without doing any deal and skipping the usual press conference, so I think the prediction has already been falsified.
Trying to follow up with people's absurd claims here is generally considered harassment, so I find it unlikely we'll get something from your parent comment.
Perhaps (hopefully) you are right and its just bread and circuses for us. They really are playing 6D chess and it's really about just being irrational, art of the deal style.
Perhaps related to the discussion:
The Scientific Art of Negotiating with a Possibly Irrational Opponent by William Spaniel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGO1gvNgG6k
There's probably also a case where Putin needs to be in a position to save face in order not to be overthrown - which could be even more dangerous.
On the other hand this might all just be trying to pretend there's a coherent strategy when its all just actually chaos.
You're right that it's theater, in the sense that the deal is already struck. But Zelensky's anger is real, because Trump's deal is---and always has been, since before the Russian invasion---the surrender of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin. Zelensky understands that he's going to be forced out of office and a Russian puppet will be installed in his place. He is understandably frustrated and angry, and is at least looking for ways to cost Trump as much as he can on the way out the door.
If you doubt any of this, then as you say, watch and learn.
The body languages of Zelensky and Trump are fascinating to look at. You can clearly see that Zelensky is not playing. Also Marco Rubio, drowning more and more on his chair.
The EU has a substantially larger population than the USA, and for now at least, is adamantly opposed to the outcome you describe.
That might be what Trump and Putin want, but they are not the only interested parties here, and Trump is certainly succeeding at waking whatever beast-like qualities the EU/NATO may have left somewhat hidden in the recent past.
Unless the EU can substantially step up its military aid, that's the outcome they're going to get. There is one card that Zelensky and Europe could play, and that's European peacekeepers guaranteeing security. But that's boots-on-the-ground, and I'm not sure Europe has the stomach for that.
The betrayal of Ukraine by the American people will be a stain on their history forever. Americans just don’t really understand what is happening.
I think many understand what is happening, but what can Americans do about it? Posting online and attended protests are not going to move the needle much. What I fear most is that violence might be the only solution, but I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
To be fair, we have Japanese internment camps, slavery, the Trail of Tears, and several others. I'm not sure if this one is going to rank all that highly on the leaderboard.
Most Americans understand and oppose Trump's surrender deal. Unfortunately a significant number of them weren't paying much attention this past November and were conned into voting for the present predicament.
Russia feels like its getting a good deal because its everything Russia wants. Trump behaving like a baby in front of the world is just a bonus.
Getting everything they want? Go do some research on what this has cost Russia - its the biggest catastrophe for Russia, possibly ever. They will never recover due to demographic & energy realignment pressure. Try to think ahead.
Their demographic collapse was happening anyway. This made it worse, but they may have already just been resigned to that. I think that's also what made them desperate.
The cost to Russia has been steep, but I think Russia is walking away from this feeling good. Russia's borders are vast and undefendable so they view it as existentially important to control their bordering states as buffers. When one of them flirts with joining NATO they view it with almost the seriousness with which the USA would view, I don't know, California flirting with becoming a part of China.
Its only a catastrophe if they didn't get Ukraine. If they have compromised the sitting US president and get Ukraine they will write history books forever in Russia about how they defeated a super power, expanded the county, with a shit army and Internet trolls.
Ah trump and vance playing the 4D chess no one else knows about.
Why does Russia care if US are being tough on Ukraine? POTUS can issue an EO saying all fundings are cut and not be an asshole about it. If the US wants to be isolated from the war, they can do it without insulting Zelenskyy or trying to get a mineral deal done.
Ah... A student of the clown school of negotiating where bluster, threats, and tantrums take the place of compromise.
Here's the real deal: Trump is a Russian asset, and it is already a foregone conclusion that Ukraine is getting fucked. This is just theatre so he can pin the whole thing on Zelensky.
I mean... I hope so? Nothing I've seen so far suggests anyone is playing 3d chess, but if this turns out to be true, then I'll give full credit.
Any attempt to pretend Trump knows the concept of Chess, fails the moment you remember he nominated Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.
I don't know if it's 6D chess but it probably was more of a chaos monkey/bury the lead strategy that doesn't take much brain power (i.e. flood the zone).
My hot take is Matt Gaetz, the Greenland purchase and the Canada as the 51st state were all distraction techniques to get the other nominees through.
Alas the person who got the AG slot after Gaetz dropped is just as willing to be a corrupt official personally loyal to Trump. Just without Gaetz' baggage.
I find the idea of Trump playing "3D/4D/5D/6D chess" frankly hilarious. Hell, the man probably can't even play 2D chess. I honestly doubt he even has the patience to learn the rules. He's the kind of person who would get checkmated in 4 moves, flip the opponent's king over, claim victory, and walk away bragging about his genius victory.
What am I supposed to learn from this exchange? You imply that you understand how to negotiate, so maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to how Trump and Vance are achieving a victory on behalf of US interests.
fsckboy, when answering mrtesthah’s question please remember that the best interests of Donald Trump do not align with the best interests of the United States.
> The deal is already made. After this show, they sign it...
You mean the deal Zelenskyy didn't sign prior to leaving? That one?
It's an awfully poor look trying to come off so confidently snarky when you don't even have your facts straight.
Edit:
>(somebody says something unique, from a different perspective in the middle of a circle jerk, and all the tossers lose their shit)
"Unique"? There are multiple responses highlighting that your facts are wrong. You're choosing to ignore those points and instead gripe about having a "unique" take?
Zelensky left the White House without signing the agreement.
[flagged]
People fighting despots for their people's freedom should be welcomed and supported, not made to beg.
If this was actually believed, he would not have to leave his continent for support.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean, as far as I know he hasn't been asked to beg or been berated like this by any other nation but the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy
Your suggestion is that European leaders don’t believe him, which would be counter to every public statement they’ve made.
He’s getting support from European nations. The US is capable of more support, hence asking for it. This isn’t complicated, I have to suspect you know all of this and are being disingenuous anyway, and I cannot fathom why.
You don't understand how the world works.
"European countries have provided €132 billion in aid (military, financial and humanitarian) as of December 2024, and the United States has provided €114 billion."
"List of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
And most of that money is flowing back. If the US government buys American weapons and ships them to Ukraine, then the money circulates in the US and leads arms manufacturers to employ people.
With Russia at war with Ukraine, Europeans have turned to US fossil imports and funneling money back to the US.
The arms in Ukraine then hurt the Russian military and degrade it. So it is effectively spend to further American goals even then.
The mental gymnastics performed to make it seem like a loss of US taxpayer money is really insane.
This is a very shallow take
This is really sad
Exactly, Trump should have given him more $100 billion.
When did Zelensky's presidential term expired again?
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.
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.
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).
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.
It looked planned to me, with canned talking points 'I clutch my pearls at you talking to us like that in OUR OVAL OFFICE!'.
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.
It was a setup
Zelensky did nothing wrong.
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)
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”.
> 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...
Checks out - Russia is the country you end up with when you have the far right's ideology.
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.
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.
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_...
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.
Remember Maria Butina, Russian spy in the NRA?
Remember the 7 compromised GOP senators members visiting Moscow on independence day uncomfortably posing for a photo op?
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.
I know about Wirecard and the Marsalek story, but not about this:
> Wirecard [...] Funding people smuggling into Europe
Can you elaborate?
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.
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.)
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.
With what David Cameron and Boris Johnston did with us in the uk. Brexit. A lot in four years.
Labour is doing no better.
You actually think there are going to be elections again?
Why not? Russia has elections too.
touche!
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"?
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.
As plausible as the pee tape?
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
No one is going to comment here wit any information that isn't trivially findable via google.
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.
Absolutely no way it can be proven. However, the actions of "Krasnov" certainly seem to point in that direction.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What’s the phrase, never let a good crisis go to waste?
The refugees started coming months before Russia's involvement, after the organized campaign with the pictures of a dead young boy on the shore.
I think it's because the really wanted to keep their navy base in syria
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).
That's the same thing.
Yeah… who dares interfere with US intervention of a country?!
russia voted for or abstained from voting about the intervention in Libya if i remember correctly
[flagged]
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.
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?"
> 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.
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.
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...
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...
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_...
Syria is very much Russia's conflict.
"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
Syria, with its 17+ factions (including ISIS) rebellion is definitely... complicated. I wouldn't know where to lay blame, personally.
go to wikipedia and read the history of Syrian conflict and how many years after it started, did Russia intervene
Good call!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
> 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.
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
You're thinking about intervention as if it means direct military involvement. They were allied with Assad and supplying weapons the entire time.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
Not sure that's terribly different from any other message they've sent so far.
The US wouldn’t have put Trump back in power if it cared about “overall looks”.
Trump cares a lot about overall looks. He didn't look like he was in control - that's what matters.
Not sure he noticed? I think in his mind he came off strong.
Watch the spin afterwards. The more he tries to spin it to look better, the less he feels like he came off strong.
he even took credit by saying I kept this going so long because its important for American people to see whats going on.
"It was a perfect melt down"
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.
To MAGA, he spoke louder, and with more confidence, therefore he won.
Unfortunately this will not shake support of him in his base.
> Unfortunately this will not shake support of him in his base.
That will probably come when they lose Medicaid and food stamp benefits.
Perhaps they figured there are more important priorities for a US President than looking good?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
Israel has never successfully blackmailed the sitting U.S. President.
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?
I think “how would we know” is actually a pretty good point. I do also find Israel’s outsized influence on the US inexplicable.
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.
Jordan and Lebanon are repressive and autocratic?
> 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.
It’s not really inexplicable. Looking into evangelicalism.
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.
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
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.
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.
Let's wait to see what that golden pager does.
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)
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.
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.
You have zero evidence for such a strong statement. Most blackmail goes undetected, so there's no way to say this confidently.
And who has?
I've read at least one book that argued otherwise.
What was Biden’s ineffectuality about then?
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".
Oh really? Then why did Clinton log 26 flights on Epstein's Lolita Express?
instead of arguing about who is the worst rapist, maybe we could try to stop electing rapists in general?
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.)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Bibi's interests != Israeli interests
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
people have been saying that for 20 years, and yet, Bibi is still there
[citation needed]
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.
Israelis will be in for a very bad after backing and helping russia. They forgot too quickly how jews have been treated there.
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.
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-20240609-S.... Question No 52.
[2] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/49-times-us-has-used-veto...
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.
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
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
And the US did not have interests in Ukraine? As if the past two decades never happened?
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!
Not sure if sarcasm or some type of counterfactual history?
It does not matter how we ended up here, but we have an obligation to select for the least bad outcome.
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.
[dead]
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.
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.
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.
How does it matter to the “needs” of the american people what happens to Ukraine one way or the other?
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.
The US profits off war. War is the easiest way to stimulate the economy.
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
But is it though?
How much money? Can you point me to studies that show this?
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.
[flagged]
For the love of god could you engage with a single argument anywhere in this entire thread?
There are no “arguments” being raised here. An argument would be something like “America relies on Ukraine as a key source of XYZ so it would be bad if Russia took it over.” Can you even tell me without looking how much U.S.-Ukraine trade there was before the war?
All these platitudes about “interests” and “soft power” seem to be predicated on an assumption that nobody is willing to articulate. Are we all expected to be Francis Fukuyama cultists here who take it as axiomatic that it’s in america’s interest to defend the borders of european countries? If that’s the argument, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Because I happen to think liberals have actually been right on that issue since the 1970s.
The argument is that appeasing Putin in Donbas will work about as well as appeasing him in Crimea, creating successively more damaging conflicts in Europe until Article 5 gets tested and either NATO falls apart or we enter a hot war with Russia, and yeah, that's gonna cost money. You know that this is the point of the WWII comparison, which is why you have so studiously ignored the argument, trying to dodge it harder than neo dodging bullets in the first matrix.
Nobody in America knows what a Donbas or a Crimea is. These all sound like Russian places to me. The names of the places alone sound like they are none of America’s business.
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.
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"
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.
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.
That's what "deterrence value" means.
Say it results in a global nuclear war. That might be the worst case scenario.
What's the dollar value of that?
I'm referring to their comments in totality, not just this one specific example.
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.”
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
I think GP is probably looking for sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
That's the one! Thank you.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Don't let Mr /r/iamverysmart duck the question about Donbas by diverting into a conversation about Iraq.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
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?
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.
I know rayiner is a troll who misunderstands things on purpose. Defining "interests" seemed like a fun exercise.
Fair, so long as you remember to practice framing / flow control elsewhere. Don't forget leg day!
Thats like asking, who cares if a drug dealer moves next door, he/she is not in your house.
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?
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.
that drug dealer has managed to make the executive of the federal government act as if they work for him.
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
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.
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...
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.
Is Ukraine like Poland, or more like Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
What is the basis of this analogy? Is it implying that the difference between North Korea and South Korea is negligible to the world?
Very different type of war... Especially Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan...
[flagged]
No personal attacks, please, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Ukraine checks all the boxes for exploration by Oligarchs, North Korea does not. Kuwait had oil, Iraq
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.
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.
Without WWII the US would likely have never become the world's superpower.
And without abandoning its allies it would have likely remained a superpower going forwards. That's suddenly in question.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Exactly how were they managing former Yugoslavia let alone the other two
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.
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.
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).
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.
> 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 continue using the India example due to the plan to finalize the EU-India FTA this year [0] - countries like Germany+Spain 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+Spanish+Czech automotive manufacturers like Volkswagen AG (includes Spain's Seat and Czechia's Skoda) largely invested in China during the 2000s but French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers like Renault-Nissan, Citroen/Fiat/Stellantis, and Piaggo (scooters yes but THE scooter in India) invested heavily in India. An EU-India FTA doesn't impact French+Italian+Romanian manufacturers but directly undermines and harms German+Spanish+Czech manufacturers.
And Indian biopharma companies (the only manufacturing industry that India is competitive at globally) 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+Spanish+Czech companies and benefit French+Italian+Romanian 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 $1.4B in interest [1] - an amount that will destroy VW Group's business in India [2] and maybe even globally depending on Chinese and NAM sales as it's an amount that's 17% of their net income).
And this is one of dozens of examples where individual European nation states do not have strategic alignment, and why when push comes to shove, they all ignore the EU and prioritize their own domestic needs.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-eu-agree-push-conc...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/india-...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/indias...
Sir: I posses a vast view of European history, Vast.
Apparently you have a vaster view.
Thank you.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
And there is also hundreds of years of historical experience where establishing buffer states worked.
Like Belgium.
Oh wait...
US had interests in the Ukraine because it was a buffer state. By sacrificing a whole country to Putin, NATO suddenly has enemy neighbors.
> 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
[dead]
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?
The needs of America, never hand anything to do with it ( except under Democrats who view has us resist oppression ), its Manifest Destiny, Law of Nations all the way.
1. We are not footing the bill, we are providing for part of the cost. "Europe gave $275 Billion. United states gave $125 Billion" 2. The U.S. has citizens in Ukraine, just as Ukraine has citizens year. 3. It is not about needs... Americans have needs to feel safe from oppression, and a stable economy, both of those are out of the question now, thanks in no small part to this type of information manipulation/Disinformation.
Rather than counter all your claims with facts, who needs facts, and your inflammatory language. I shall leave you to Minos.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That's what I keep coming back to. If I were trying to harm American interests, what would I do differently?
Nothing.
I find it hard to believe that the NSA/CIA don't have the capability to uncover, insert own players and stop this.
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...
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...
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?
> 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.
Also, other countries send lots of students to the US. Some become immigrants but lots go back home.
Also, US-Europe immigration is largely moribund. Most immigration to the US now comes from Asian and LatAm states, so a lot of us Americans prioritize those problems and needs above Europe.
This squares with Edward Luttwak's take:
https://unherd.com/2025/02/the-breakdown-of-the-cia
I'm shocked at how impotent they seem against Russian cultural warfare.
Because we have the 1st Amendment. It's (correctly) very hard to combat people just saying stupid shit in the US.
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.
Totally agreed, just not an easy thing for intelligence agencies to fiddle with/defend.
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.
Which is why they put pro-Putin Gabbard in as DNI. She's been purging.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Paid traitors are repaying their debts, hopefully they'll get what they deserve.
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.
The following EU countries offer skilled worker visas: Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Denmark. Also non-EU places such as Aus and NZ.
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)
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
> The EU should have visa programs for skilled professionals looking to leave the U.S.
We don't have a skilled worker shortage in EU right now, we have a skilled jobs shortage. All white collar skilled job ads are flooded with local applicants, we don't need more immigrants to water down wages and push up rents. My (f500 company) company just laid off 70 SW & HW engineers at one office while I've been part of the layoffs before.
The real shortages are in healthcare, and tough jobs people don't like to do for little money, like construction or elderly care, but there's enough Europeans willing to work cushy office jobs there's no need to import foreign competition other than to appease the corporate pushed propaganda.
Or whatever interests have compromised or bribed the administration
Surely that points towards Russia? What are you suggesting?
I read that as currently but not solely or always Russia.
I assume the insinuation is of Musk buying the presidency.
Which he unquestionably has. Look at what is happening with FAA and Verizon.
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.
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.
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...
If Trump was taking direct orders from Putin, what would he be doing differently?
Another weasel word “soft power.” Is interfering in bangladeshi elections “soft power?”
When did neocons take over silicon valley?
[flagged]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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...
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...
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...
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.
> 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.
Many old men are delusional.
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).
> He’s trolling dude
During election when Trump said outrageous things, a lot of people had the same attitude as you, and downplayed Trump's comments: he's trolling... he is bluffing... it is just a distraction tactic... it is a negotiation tactic... and so on.
Then after he got elected and actually started doing the things he said he would the same people are like... "Trump is delivering exactly what he promised what he would deliver when he started this campaign. This is what the American people voted for!"
> 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.
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.
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.
At least we know there's no deep state.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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".
Supposedly Trump had a Golden Shower with an escort in Russia.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
It's wtf.
> Somebody shot at Trump and hit his ear, and that didn't change Trump's behavior.
My mother believes that was a setup as a patriotic act. I'm not sure myself.
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:
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.
Your not wrong.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47630
> 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...
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[dead]
> 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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
How do you stop the Russians continuing a one sided murder campaign after the surrender?
Give them whatever they want, again, I suppose! That's the only conclusion possible from a policy of "any compromise to end the killing".
> 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?
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.
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.
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
>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.
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#Aspiring...
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.
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.
Appreciate the props, I was starting to question my rhetorical chops. ;)
Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree:
"Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight."
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
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.
Russia already had, and even created more NATO membership on its borders(Finland just recently). That excuse is clearly false.
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.)
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.
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.
I certainly wouldn't expect another random country halfway around the world to foot the bill for my country.
Countries all over the world should want to help stop an aggressor before it expands and becomes powerful enough to attack them. It's a no brainer, and you have plenty of examples throughout history.
As things stand now, 5 years from now USA could become overrun with russian mobs and oligarch running rampant, and EU faces the real possibility of another continental conflict. I don't think many people around the world are going to enjoy that scenario.
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.
> 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.
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 ?
There was never a compromise in WW1, Germany collapsed.
This is just an argument for letting powerful countries take over weaker ones, because resistance would result in suffering.
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.
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.
Which is just one of many, many broken agreements.
> 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.
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.
For fucking real, I was against invading Iraq (again...) for reasons pretty similar to why I'm against letting Russia take Ukraine.
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?
In fact, Russia's successful invasion of Georgia in 2008 - during which the West basically just said "omg plz don't" - did exactly that.
Excellent point.
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
>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.
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.
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”?
> 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.
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?
Einstein was pro-nuke!
Certainly applying the Einstein solution of a spread of nukes would end the war, very quickly.
he called his initial support 'the one great mistake of my life' - and spent the rest of it campaigning for disarmament
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.
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.
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.
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..
I think you're saying that not because you're anti-war, but because you're OK with Ukraine losing.
Trump is calling for peace and a ceasefire agreement.
Zelensky won't agree?
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.
How is my statement "disgusting"?
I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
> I am anti-war. I truly want peace.
That's cool. Go convince the aggressor to stand down and never attack anyone again so there can be peace.
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.
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)
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.
Genuine question: what is the solution?
The United States has given Ukraine billions. That hasn't seemed to resolved the issue?
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.
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.
will you fight while being raped? will you fight from enslavement? No? You want peace? - Most free people will fight back and kill.
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.
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.
Well said. I completely agree.
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.
> 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.
How can you compromise with an invader looking to occupy your country?
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.
You mean like the International Brigades? They are defending their country from an aggressor - they're supposed to roll over?
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.
The (moderate) left was anti-oppression and anti-dictatorship. Sometimes you need to fight for that, but the goal remains a stable, egalitarian and peaceful society.
If your anti-war stance means I can punch you in the face and your reaction is to compromise on "ok but no more punching", your face is going to look very bad very soon.
As if the Ukrainians had a choice about fighting. If Russia gives up, the war ends. If Ukraine gives up, Ukraine ends.
If Russian soldiers leave then the war ends immediately.
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?
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree that this accurately illustrates usa strategy on ukraine.
of course the reason to stop killing people is to stop killing people.
Why is compromising the anti war stance? Ukraine is not Putin’s end goal, it’s his first step
> Ukraine is not Putin’s end goal, it’s his first step
Technically his second given the invasion of Crimea.
There’s a third solution: Russia could just stop its aggression and leave.
If your country was invaded by your neighbor would you want to fight them or just capitulate?
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.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56470/did-henry...
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.
I am starting to believe the theory that Trump was a Russian agent
> 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
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.
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.
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.
This is so stupid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Well, Russia has been interfering a lot recently. And don't you find it quaint how what Trump does aligns with Russian interests? He has already weakened diplomatic ties to all western countries, killed USAID (who is going to move in to get all that goodwill? China of course). Put doubts in people about the meaning and guarantees of NATO.
And he calls Zelensky a dictator and refuses to call Putin one. Laughable. If there is no russian interference trump is even more clueless than I thought.
So why did Trump invite a so-called dictator to the Oval Office? You are going to have a very long 4 years of Trump if you choose to remain willfully ignorant about what his administration is about or if you place more importance on his negotiation tactics over the results.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> It represents the interests of the American people who voted for Trump
It really doesn't and they'll come to feel it even if they don't recognize it.
It's hilarious how some people actually believe Trump's lies that Ukraines support is actually freely given/a donation.
In reality, the support is literally the US selling the old garbage military equipment to the Ukraine for debt. You know, the stuff that the actual US military considers too old to actually use anymore.
Especially ironic in the context of Ukraines treaty with the US, which is why they dont have any nukes anymore. Which was most likely the reason why Russia finally felt comfortable invading them in 2014 and now.
>selling the old garbage
EU does the same.
Despite that being a lie... If it weren't, I'm not sure how that's relevant?
The EU isn't demanding that the Ukraine becomes an effective colony to be exploited at will by thenn for dubious claims of a solution. Neither did it have the treaty. Both of which were the things that made it ironic.
Please elaborate how sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine is in the interests of the average Trump voter.
Did you guys already forget 9/11 and invoking Article 5 of the NATO agreement for an issue on your soil?
Please elaborate how starting a war in Afghanistan was in Europe's interests. In fact, it was the USA that had created Bin Laden in the first place.
All I hear from MAGA is hypocrisy and revisionism.
We don't actually really do that.
The majority of the "funds" pay for products like shells and missiles made by American labor (which encompasses quite a few Trump voters!) in America with American parts and American steel and American know-how. We're donating no-longer-used Bradleys, F-16s, Javelins that are reaching (sometimes past!) their expiration date, etc.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-ukraine-aid-package-and-w...
> The notion of “aid to Ukraine” is a misnomer. Despite images of “pallets of cash” being sent to Ukraine, about 72 percent of this money overall and 86 percent of the military aid will be spent in the United States. The reason for this high percentage is that weapons going to Ukraine are produced in U.S. factories, payments to U.S. service members are mostly spent in the United States, and even some piece of the humanitarian aid is spent in the United States.
(As a bonus, we're getting to try out all our stuff against Russia's best, in a way we've never really gotten to. It's an incredible ad for American defense contractors.)
If you'd told the old Cold Warriors that a small fraction of a single year's military budget could turn the Russian military into a shadow of its original, they would not have believed you.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
You can ask CharGPT what "interests" mean in this context, it can give you a comprehensive explanation connecting these interests to GDP and quality of life of US citizens in the long term. You no longer can play stupid.
FWIW US spent less than 100B in 3 years of war, it's nothing compared to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it serves an important function, "every cent counts!" makes no sense here as the goal is to prevent bigger confrontation in the future
CharGPT
Risking American lives? How many Americans have died in the war as a result of US aid?
[flagged]
>Zelensky implied Russia would invade the U.S. Do you think that’s likely?
He did not. What he did say is, that should Russia start to expand the war to other countries (as is very likely if Ukraine falls), these effects will be felt by the people in the US.
That statement is obviously true. The effects of the Ukraine war could also be felt, as it affected the economy across the globe.
[flagged]
The Baltics, which we have very serious contracts to defend with American lives, including drafting our children if it spirals.
keep those goalposts moving; the soul of a good faith argument here
> We cannot continue spending trillions of dollars and risking American lives based on weasel words like “interests” and “allies.” Say what you really mean.
What he means is whatever Russia is interested in doing, Trump is motivated to agree to given his open, well-documented idolization of Putin and other dictators, making us effective allies. Your attempts to devalue OP's argument like pretending he is being too vague are quite trasparent and do not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, you need to prove why Trump's recent behavior and remarks toward Putin don't establish us as allies with shared interests.
> Say what you mean
You ought to take your own advice, buddy.
[flagged]
>It takes a little more comprehension skills to understand words. I understand if you didn't get that comprehensive education.
I vehemently disagree with rayiner, often, but you personally attacking them only serves to weaken your position.
> I vehemently disagree with rayiner, often, but you personally attacking them only serves to weaken your position.
Glad you see the reality. I don't care about my position but only the reality.
> It takes a little more comprehension skills to understand words. I understand if you didn't get that comprehensive education.
Like the sibling comment says, this is an embarrassing way to cap out an otherwise reasonable comment.
You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?
> He said that it could come to American shores - the bite, the cyberwar, the nukes - not necessarily only the army.
> You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?
jump right to the most extreme possible claim to pull from the above and _strrrretch_ it -- impeccable form! It's not even a logical fallacy, it's just lying about what the person before you said, presented as though they look foolish for saying it. Smooth, hollow, soulless stuff.
> You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?
No. But can it escalate to that via cyber attacks, territorial attacks, and global warfare? Yes.
Rule number 1 of untrustworthy counterparties: They will always be untrustworthy, even if they are temporarily friendly.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Unless we solve all problems, we aren't allowed to have an opinion on one problem.
I don't think you realize that those two issues are related. https://x.com/zei_squirrel/status/1895539811576135866
But then again, most Americans seem to have no issue with AIPAC having near full control over congress. Because if they did, we'd have seen more outrage and action.
[flagged]
I think this take only makes sense if there is no such thing as morally or justice. If we were just discussing a business deal, fine, but Ukrainians are being killed and told to be nicer to the killer’s leader. It’s an insane position.
This is a summery by a right-wing influencer who clearly has a massive bias. Do with that information what you will.
> best summary
From the author of "The origins of Woke", without aiming for ad hominem that sounds like a rather biased source from my European perspective.
I would prefer to watch the whole press conference and make my own conclusions.
>> All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The deal was: give the resources so we give money. And btw just hand over the land to Putin. Glad he did not sign.
> 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
And now here we all are with the russian agents firmly entrenched in the GOP.
> 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.
Blueanon is so hot right now.
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.
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.
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.
What is worse, risking nuclear annihilation or risking the end of democracy as a concept and fully inviting authoritarianism?
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.
I think you mean by Israel.
Russia is Israels adversary, despite the appearances.
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...
Did you feel the same way when Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration helped Russia deal Uranium? Real question.
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
Do you feel the same about <insert nonsense>? RQ
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, unfortunately you're not shutting up. Your government is currently pursuing a crazy pro Russia agenda.
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?
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.
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. 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.
"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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
Exhibit A for level one thinking.
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.
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.
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.
What 'previous occupying regime'? You are not making much sense.
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.
You don’t vote for any policy or action.
You vote for Presidents and politicians who act on your behalf.
You don't understand anything.
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?
>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.
> 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.
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.
Russia will offer concessions that benefit the president and his friends, you mean.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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...
There’s no question in my mind that this went exactly as planned.
My feeling too. Now it gives the Trump administration the grounds to claim that they can’t work with this “warmonger” who doesn’t want peace.
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.
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?
Peace without justice is just conquest.
This is so painful to watch. This kind of discussion should absolutely be behind closed doors to avoid the theatrics.
The US walks alone now. Vulnerable and weak.
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.
Any nation alone in a world of nations with strong alliances is weak.
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.
The theory is that the only reason Vance was present was to be able to double-team Zelenskyy.
I think the VP is usually present at these types of meetings; but indeed there was double-teaming.
and Rubio was there to.....
sit and do nothing in an ill fitting suit
What can he really do in that situation? He can defend Zelensky or join in for a triple teaming. There aren't good options.
I think defending Zelensky would have been the honorable thing to do. It could have inspired other Republicans to start turning.
Rubio?
Honorable?
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.
Him on Oprah then is night and day compared to now.
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.
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.
The Propaganda Minister is also decrying Zelenskyy on Twitter, on cue. Probably had the tweet written hours ago.
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
From PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpAj8rRe-p0
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.
We're 3 years in and I have zero idea. Nothing comes to mind except for plain old expansion for the sake of expansion.
Broadly speaking, it’s because Putin is pissed that the Soviet Union fell (he lived through it as a KGB member in East Berlin), and Russia culturally originated around Kiev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27), so he sees it as part of what should be the Russian empire. There are some important industries and resources in Ukraine, plus better access to the Black Sea, and Ukraine’s orientation towards the EU and NATO is seen as an ideological and military threat, but the perceived humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union, not being respected in the Western world, and trying to undo that and restore Russia’s glory, seems to be what is driving Putin the most.
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.
If you’re a European, you should try identifying the psyops more with yourselves and your families, and support unification and democratic alliances where possible. And talk more about it since most people are absolutely influenced by conspiracies across the whole continent and across social strata. The UK was talking about the EU instituting straight bananas, and it was a key point for Brexit, including by the UK Prime Minister (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johns...)
If you’re an American, good luck. I’m sorry you’re gonna have to go through this.
At the end of the day, if you voted one way, it wasn’t your fault. You were probably deceived by foreign psyops. Happens to everyone.
If you voted the other way, don’t be angry. Turning it into class warfare does not provide any moral victory, and more so, is once again a distraction from the group of people who really are to blame for this. This is a the rallying point you were waiting for to become more politically active, in whatever way you can.
Also maybe consult with your constitution?
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.
I despair for where this is heading :(
It's sad to be smaller countries.
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?
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.
It's coming from elon, who has courted russia for Ukraine's metals and minerals since at least the 2022 invasion.
That's what I suspect as well, especially with the tesla bots, but there is also Ellison's influence
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Greenland is worthless, and having a long running territorial dispute with the entirety of Europe would be bad for all involved.
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.
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
US has for all practical purposes owned Greenland since WW2.
this meeting will be remembered in ages to be come.
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.
So… Where are we marching?
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.
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.
[flagged]
Europe being carved up? My man over there has single handedly given new life in the European defense sector, with other countries joining nato
It depends how well European countries are able to defend themselves (and their political systems) from attack and corruption by Russia. So far, IMO, results have been mixed. I am hopeful for Europe though.
It will be tough. America is now trying to export American-style fascism to Europe as well. So we have a new enemy, a former friend who has betrayed us. As I say, it'll be tough.
Just as well that the UK's nuclear weapons can be fired without American permission, ..., oh wait ...
If it comes to that, the current global society is done and gone, and quite possibly humanity with it. No way the UK doesn't have control over their own devices though.
You might want to do a bit of research there before commenting further.
France built an independent system, the UK did not.
What should I be looking at?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterr...
"Although the UK’s nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of NATO, we retain full operational control over its use. Only the UK Prime Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons, even if used as part of a wider NATO response."
It's also just not at all believable that they would not be able to push their own buttons. Why would it be set up that way? And what would prevent fixing it even if it were?
You do realize Russia is _puny_ in all other aspects expect corruption and lack of value of human life where they are champions.
The reason Russia has succeeded so far is because most parties have _minimized_ their engagement with the conflict _and Russia is still loosing_.
The only reason Ukraine’s flag is not in Kremlin is because Russia has nukes.
And anyone can get nukes.
Do you think maybe calling their citizens Orcs and insane rhetoric against Putin aka Hitler 2.0 might cause a great deal of tension for a country with nuclear weapons? What is your cool and calm strategy for this world dilemma?
Nobody's firing nukes any time soon, everybody loses when they start flying and you can't rule over a desert.
Exactly. Nukes are the ultimate guarantor of piece.
None of them are pawns in this game; mere mortals are. But all the kings and queens are moved by the same hand
While being smarter than Trump is a very low bar to take, Putin and Dugin are not the sharpest pencils in the box either.
Smart people are often beaten into submission by bullies. Being smart is not everything there is.
Underestimating your enemies is a common mistake. Not only are Trump, Putin, and Dugin all intelligent people, they all have access to much more and much better intelligence than you or I.
Trump especially irks me, because he's calculated his entire persona to appear somewhat dumb, and it works. He's not an idiot at all, and people espousing that view are falling for propaganda.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Marco Rubio was there with an expression like his soul had left his body.
Cheney comes to mind.
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.
'I don't really care what happens to Ukraine, one way or the other'
(context) Vice President JD Vance Delivers Remarks at the Munich Security Conference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg
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.
Isn’t Vance sponsored by Thiel and therefore here to stay?
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.
I get the sense that Vance and Musk are the ones really in control.
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.
Steven Miller and Musk, not Vance
Donate donate to Ukraine https://u24.gov.ua/ Trump is simply abject
I am sincerely curious what Andreesen and Horowitz believe at the moment.
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.
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?
> the US shouldn't be spending so much money helping Ukraine in the war
Russia has been a principal threat for the past 75 years.
Donating equipment is a cheap way to wear them down. Dirty cheap.
It's absolutely in US interest, as it would allow US to focus on other players.
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.
[flagged]
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.
> 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.
>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.
/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
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.
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.
It is absolutely the perspective of most conservatives I speak with in blood red Ohio
Where in OH?
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.
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.
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
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]"
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.
I guess that only someone who would see himself on top could conceive something so perverted
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.
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.
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.
If liberalism is creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, then what the hell is techno-monarchy creating?
More of a torment nexus.
FSB psyops directorate is celebrating so hard they won’t get sober until next Tuesday.
Doublethink at its finest.. We were always at war with Estasia after all..
Unfortunately I think it plays well for their audience, makes Trump and Vance look strong, and makes Zelenksy look week.
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...
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.
MMA-based diplomacy.
More like WWE
More like department of education.
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.
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.
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.
Cue the super-cut of Zelensky thanking the U.S. since probably December 2022.
No, they come off as weak little babies whining about someone not saying thank you.
Who are you telling, but they're not playing to us.
That's not what strength looks like, but the American right-wing probably will think it is.
Trump & Vance didn't screw it up- this was on purpose. As the saying goes, "the cruelty is the point"
I'm going with the idea that it is screwed up, even if intentional.
Yeah, pretty sure history will be the judge as to whether this was a colossal screwup.
[flagged]
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).
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.
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.
> This is also a historic day for the world. US dominance over the West is over.
Seeing the US part ways with "western allies" firsthand - a true paradigm shift, and one I'm not looking forward to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was what happened today in the White House the best outcome for Ukraine? It is hard to see how that is the case.
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.
"Best outcome", no. "Best possible outcome", probably.
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.
> 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.
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.
Imho still better than relying on a bully.
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.
China can be pretty sure that the US will not act if they attack Taiwan. Trump and Vance are weak. All talk, no walk.
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.
> 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?
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.
Perhaps Europe can defend it?
I am sorry but the intelligent, cultured America I learned to love does no longer exist.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
History will hopefully record how quickly they bowed to fascism when it benefited them.
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.
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.
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_...
For a second I thought this was by Chuck Tingle rather than Arms Control Wonk
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...
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...
After this meeting I have no doubts that President Krasnov theory is real.
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.
The "certain segment of his supporter base" is now completely managed by Russians in their information / cognitive domain.
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.
This entire administration is shameful, I hope that this haunts them, what they did to Zelensky is unbelievable.
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.
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.
What sparked this heated discussion? Zelensky asked JD what if Putin breaks the agreed diplomacy as he had done previously?
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).
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.
[flagged]
That meeting is one of the most infurating things I have ever witnessed. We are 100% cooked.
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.
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.
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.
The west has immense influence on Ukrainians, and have pushed for their integration into NATO for decades.
The arguments Mearsheimer is making are not whether Ukrainians should or should not have any choice over their own country. It’s whether they do. And the unfortunate reality is that they don’t, due to their unfortunate situation.
This argument doesn’t make sense now that Ukraine lost the war, now it’s empirically proven that Ukrainians don’t in fact get to choose and this line of thinking is what led to the war in the first place.
A finally forced myself to watch the clip. What an absolute disgrace Trump and Vance are.
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...
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.
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.
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?
What is this, reddit? Has nothing to do with technology. Flagged.
Embarrassing buffoonery. I never thought I'd pine for the days of bureaucratic but stately presidents.
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 :(
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.
What's wrong with being allies? Authoritarian countries unite!
Zelensky should have asked Trump if he (Zelensky) need only lick Trump's boots or should he lick Vance's boots also.
Like a misbehaving child called into the principal’s office
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.
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.
"This is gonna be great television I will say that." - Donald Trump's last words as the confrontation ended. Just insanity.
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.
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.
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.
There’s even the CNN tape for the occasion.
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.
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.
What’s bad is the example Trump is setting for future presidents of United States. Also another worse thing is he is installing all yes man/woman who seem clueless in their posts
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.
Please donate drones to Ukraine https://www.dronesforukraine.fund/
Great idea!
Though we learned the hard way what "dontate to ukraine" means
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/estonia-biggest-charity-helping-u...
Didn’t a Trump call with the Danish prime minister also end like that?
I guess tomorrow Trump calls Zelensky a dictator again.
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.
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. :|
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.
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.
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.
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"
>closing US military bases in Europe
I think Trump would welcome that, though.
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.
He's not serious about anything. Sorry for the low effort comment. I'm just frustrated.
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.
> 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.
Maybe that will give them reason enough to refuse an order to put down protests using the Insurrection Act.
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
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
Trump, and his posse of minions, are just not equipped to deal with real-world events and threats. What a disgrace.
Wouldn’t surprise me if this OP gets flagged or has all anti-trump comments downvoted to oblivion by bots lol
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.
> Ukraine doesn't have the cards.
Oh, but they do. We (the west) can't allow them to be overrun.
So if they refuse to accept a deal, what can we really do?
Starving Ukraine for supplies would be extremely dangerous.
(That said: I'm not sure Trump understands this)
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.
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
Sadly, “Trump takes military action against Ukraine” was on my Bingo card for this administration. We’re getting there, aren’t we?
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.
US cannot unfreeze anything, because all the frozen funds are in the EU.
Funding secured.
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.
Not likely. But by withdrawing military aid they're basically giving Ukraine to the Russians.
Let's hope the EU countries fully support Ukraine.
Too angry to type more.
if EU was going to do that Zelenskyy the beggar wouldn't be begging us to save him
And what is bad with that?
You create an account for this?
Is this a serious question? From whose viewpoint are you asking?
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.
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"
[flagged]
He's scheduled to address his nation in a Fireside Xhat as soon as the ketamine drip goes dry.
I read that as khat for a second, and I was happy he found a new drug
He took the same side as Russia https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1895537389436833967
I wonder what Hitler would be thinking about all this if he'd be alive.
[flagged]
Hard to tell when his platform and Grok 3 were/are actively censoring and spread disinformation. From another comment I made in the thread:
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...
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.
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.
"have you been to Ukraine?" No but... lol
important questions to Zelensky like "why don't you wear a suit". (roughly minute 18)
…and removed from front page…
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").
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.
Watching Netflix shows is a horrible way of learning about nuances of international conflicts.
I think 'nuance' has left the building.
Just a bad seed Trump is
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.
> 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.
> Rioting in the US is viewed extremely unfavorably in the US
Unless storming the Capitol to disrupt a democratic election.
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.
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.
>but by your silence
What qualifies as not that? I've said my peace, my ability to deploy millions is limited.
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.
There are protests in Germany against AFD, Slovakia against the pro-Russia prime minister.
Should've seen Athens today.
> 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.
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.
This summer is going to be spicy. Just you wait.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
> 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.
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
This is not about not going into the conflict. Trump is seemingly siding with Russia while undermining allies and calling Zelinsky dictator.
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.
And of course it gets flagged 28 minutes later.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
or of a CERN experiment in ~2015 having had ...side effects
[flagged]
"NATO expansion" is one point of view. Another is: a sovereign country (Ukraine) prefers the west over Russia and wants to join it.
So what’s the propaganda now?
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.
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.
He did the same to Biden privately: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna54592
Absolutely correct, huge blunder on Zelensky's part, even though many here are angry with Trump
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.
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).
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.
On the bright side, the more clearly Trump displays his gross incompetence, the more quickly he will be deposed.
I think most Americans have already made up their mind on Donald Trump. Nothing will matter until individuals' personal financial situations are affected.
That was the most shameful thing I’ve ever seen as an American.
Where is Congress? This needs to stop; impeach Trump already!
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.
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.
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.
[delayed]
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.
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.
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.
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?
[flagged]
if Ukraine wants to end the war they need to defeat Putin if Russia wants to end the war they need to leave
why are you blaming Ukraine
Or they can negotiate for peace. This is how most wars end. It is also how this war will end. If only the 2022 Istanbul negotiations were supported by the west instead of being undermined. If I were Ukrainian I would be furious with the western 'allies', essentially lying about unconditional support and promoting an impossible outcome for their own geopolitical interests. Utterly shameful.
[flagged]
10000% could not agree more. The American elite's should be charged with war crimes.
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.”
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.
> generally like his shows of strength
I hope you're going to enjoy the Ukrainian deaths that will be carried out for your entertainment.
This type of comment is why users flag submissions.
Thankfully there are many other better comments (and the submission itself is unique).
What an ugly thing to say.
It's a live war with thousands of dead a month. Of course it's ugly.
> > 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
I just honestly cannot fathom how you voted for this person and somehow surprised by this. Were you just not paying attention since 2016?
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.
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."
"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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
You are confusing the principle and western liberal value of freedom of speech with the first amendment, which is an implementation of the value.
It’s exactly that.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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).
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.
No slandering laws in the US? I don't think so.
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?
An US citizen was tortured and effectively murdered, and you're talking to me about "nuance"? WTF?
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.
> 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?
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...
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.
Have you ever sent anyone a message that later turned out to be false?[1] Do you have £50k 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
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".
Would accusing you of naivete cause "non-trivial psychological harm?"
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.
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.
Section 127(2): A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
Again, the ECHR’s freedom of expression takes precedence. Good news! You can still post bad takes and disinformation online!
But you can’t abuse people with it. For example sending a hate mob on someone, defamation, swatting etc. (which are also covered by other acts).
And again, S127 is problematic because it doesn’t clearly define a line, it leaves it up to the courts on a case-by-case basis. Much of British common law is like that though.
Please go on because nothing that you mentioned can send you in jail.
Oh? How about being held 18 months on remand if you don't automatically plead guilty? Perhaps read the sentencing guidelines for s127.
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.
> 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.
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.
Nice whataboutism. Europe (especially the UK) has less freedoms than the USA. That's a fact.
Whataboutism? We're literally talking about a war Russia is the aggressor in.
The US has stronger legal protection for speech and guns, but also more incarceration and police power. US incarceration rate is four times the UK rate.
Also in the UK, the speech restrictions are about stuff like glorifying terrorism, hate speech or harassment. You can criticize the government as much as you want.
In the US you're free to buy a gun, praise ISIS, and shout on the street that people should be murdered or that you love Hitler but not everyone likes that.
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.
Who defines what constitutes "hate speech"? Do you not recognize this as a hangar-sized backdoor?
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.
And it is as simple as that. I prefer that.
Who gets to define what constitutes “hate speech”?
Post specific or shut up, because this is just spewing bullshit with some true bits sprinkled on top for the sake of deniability.
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.
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
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...
Any definition of free speech other than "absolute", will end up weaponized against yourself when the tides shift, no matter how virtuous you are.
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.
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.
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.
Which ones? You'll have to be more specific.
Oh they have to be more specific while you provide absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims?
Quick summary: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/about-us/article/2025/02/26/in-the...
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.
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.
Freedom to promote Nazism and to promote the rehabilitation of Nazis isn't welcomed in Europe.
Yes, it might theoretically make Europe less free, and now you have the Twitter guy being a member of the US administration doing Nazi salutes and promoting far right parties.
Suddenly Hitler was a victim. Like the disregard for the thousands of young men lost on the D day and to the war, to reach this freedom you're preaching.
Yet that doesn't seem to leave any sour taste, go figure.
But I have to ask, why you want the freedom for people to be able to promote Nazism?
[dead]
Try posting your plans to assassinate the orange idiot on facebook and see what happens
[flagged]
First you tell me what is wrong about what I have said.
He claimed, incorrectly, that people who live near abortion "buffer zones" in Scotland were sent letters by the government warning them about praying privately within their own homes. This was nonsense.
Why are you making things up?
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?
> 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.
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.
Trump, Musk and Vance are a disgrace. I hope democrats turn this around. Europe stands with Ukraine
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?
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".
> How did Russia end up being our enemies again, and will they be our enemies forever?
By attacking us.
Conservatives no longer exist. It’s MAGAs who replaced their made up god with Trump. Then there’s everyone else.
>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.
The transsexual people didn't come from Europe. But you're right that hating them is why people support Trump.
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
This was absolutely disgraceful. Another step on the road to becoming a pariah state.
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.
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.
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.
Look like it worked.
[flagged]
Ok, you know how Superman gets his powers from the energy of the Earth's yellow sun? Same, except I use being a busybody instead of the sun.
That and your snazzy HN club jacket :D
[flagged]
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
quite an impactful and unusual event -- this post should _not_ be flagged
I've started going to the "new" section for HN instead of the front page to catch the news before it's flagged.
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)
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
I treat http://news.ycombinator.com/active as the real front page. Flagged discussions show up there.
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.
Maybe you should try reading a mainstream news site or news aggregator instead
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.
This is what JD Vance calls 'free speech'...
Free speech is allowed but only if you say thank you and wear a suit.
Reminder that _all_ Elon Nazi salute submissions got flagged
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.
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.
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
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/share/bGVnYWN5_11a88b64-b1aa-4d07-a583-d2a3...
All coverage about this I could find. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/find-all-major-social-media...
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.
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.
More like musk fanboys that either are just straight up nazi bros or are too invested in tesla instinctively smash that flag button
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.
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.
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...
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”…
his family has a past with Nazis
https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/movies/2025/01/25/6794ca2...
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet another reason to be embarrassed as an American.
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.
>Next they’ll shake up the military.
"Next?"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pushes-out-top-us-gen...
I was being sarcastic. I’m sorry, I am trying not to be passive aggressive, exactly in that order.
We've crossed the Rubicon, where sarcasm is no longer indistinguishable from reality.
Hah, my bad for missing it. ;)
> Next they’ll shake up the military.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-brown-joint-chiefs-of-staff...
[flagged]
I think that everybody else did the same as Obama back then. Obama really got into this bombing-people-with-drones-in-some-places-around-the-world stuff.
Those are two different situations with completely different ramifications.
Dear Americans, please do something. Protest, write letters to congressmen etc. We Germans went through all of this 90 years ago..
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.
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.
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://preview.redd.it/qiqe74sl19141.jpg?auto=webp&s=07645c...
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.
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.
You might find this interesting https://pod.link/1544487624/episode/fca68c3a2a51c5cdeb29a546...
[dead]
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.
And how did you stop it?
By giving Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany
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.
Unionize and go on strike. Like nationwide.
Learn from France.
Organise a political revolution. Nothing less than that will have an actual impact
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.
It's lost, at least till mid term.
Can you explain how this mirrors what happened in Germany?
[flagged]
[dead]
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.
[flagged]
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.
If you are fine making other people live under putins thumb... Are you willing to put yourself in that position?
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
>The US government absolutely participated in over throwing the existing pro-Russian government around 2014.
This is explicitly Russian propaganda. There is no evidence of this. Euromaidan happened because Ukrainians wanted to get closer to Europe, which is why they voted for people who said they would get closer to Europe, and then aggressively erupted into protest when that leader went to Russia and came back with a 180 degree different plan.
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.
> 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.
This is how NATO replaces the US with Ukraine. Kicking the US out of Five Eyes is likely next.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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/ https://hn.algolia.com/?query=secret%20history%20of%20silico...
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.
Regarding Pine Gap, they've allegedly done it before even without Elon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
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.
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.
there is still to much corruption in the Ukraine, that Europe will never accept.
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.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Why aren't tech stocks in freefall? Chinese invasion of Taiwan now seems imminent.
Not immediately imminent. China themselves have said 2027-ish.
> 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.
This comes directly from Xi's speeches at the People's National Congress, going back to 2023.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Nah, I think they’ll wait until a civil war breaks out in the US
This
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Not today, Russia.
> Zelensky went there under the pretext of signing the mineral deal, but changed his mind before arriving.
That's not true. The agreement that both sides drafted was agreed upon and Zelensky planned on signing it.
> Sorry, but Ukraine, which is not in NATO and thus not entitled to unconditional defense, is not worth starting WW3 over.
No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression.
> Its sickening watching Zelensky and Europe act like my country is obligated to go into unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them.
To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO. And the only time it's been used so far was for 911 when all NATO countries came to the US's aid after it was attacked.
As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU. The number Trump keep pushing, $350BN is lies. Ukraine has seen about $70 Billion. Which Zelensky has thanked the US for on may occasions, notably in front of congress. The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who commited war crimes and abducted children, and continue to bomb civilian areas say after day. Instead of shaking down a country and people at their weakest hour for money that was given to it by the previous president?
The linked article doesnt mention the agreement changing. Did it? If it did I can understand him not signing it.
However there was reporting prior to his arrival that he didnt intend to sign it, and considered it something that lower level officials could do. This was after the impression was given that he was coming to the US to sign it, as you admitted was his intention.
> No one ever said they needed to. What gives you that impression
NATO membership for Ukraine is an attempt to call Russia's bluff that they wouldn't continue fighting, or escelate to nuclear weapons if Ukraine were admitted. That is a direct die roll on starting WW3 and Ukraine is not worth it.
> To be clear European NATO partners do expect the US to go unlimited debt or die on the battlefield to protect them. It's called NATO.
I think you understood that I meant for Ukraine. If not, well, it wasn't difficult to see that's what I meant.
Yes, the US should, and I and most Americans do support, upholding Article 5 obligations.
> As for Ukraine. Firstly the US has give much less than the EU.
I hope you're joking.
> The US owes no one anything, but is it too much to ask that Trump goes hard on the ones who started the war, Russia, who...
The west collectively went hard on Russia. We gave Ukraine more of a fighting chance than anyone could possibly hope for. But Russia is winning. We will not escalate to risking WW3. Ukrainians are amazingly tough people and what happened to them is a tragedy, but its in their best interest to stop fighting and dying.
Are you familiar with the Budapest memorandum?
[flagged]
biden ran on that, did a good job, and was demolished for it
[flagged]
Perhaps this has a similar explanation as the observation that universities and higher education seem to be politically one-sided.
If you have some constructive criticism to share, I’m all ears. Always in search for more views. Especially now where things are upside down.
Both sides agree that America has provided at least $100 billion and possibly up to a half-trillion in aid and other consideration to Ukraine. That's a fair bit of money!
And, if Zelenskyy is to be believed, it was a "grant", or a gift, which makes Zelenskyy's disrespectful attitude and hubris in the White House even more outrageous.
Possibly there isn’t a critique of his behavior because there isn’t a critique to be made: from a website like hacker news where every reasonable position is usually represented, it should tell you something that this is unanimous.
[flagged]
Trump and Vance’s behavior seems outrageous for leaders of the US. Zelensky certainly didn’t handle everything perfectly, but in comparison he looks like an actual president.
Technically, Zelenskyy instituted martial law and cancelled Ukrainian elections, so although he is the undisputed leader in power in Ukraine, he's not an elected president.
Do actual presidents show up in sweatshirts and insult their benefactors?
During war seems like the right time to institute martial law. Their legal system allows for the pausing of elections during a war.
He’s been very outspoken about why he doesn’t wear suits.
And my god if you think he showed up and insulted Trump, think how anyone would feel if you showed up for a photo op and got tag team bullied by the US president and vp.
Yes, we are all state actors paid by Macron and von der Leyen.
How is what happened today surprising to you? Only if you live in American or Russian disinformation bubbles.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What peace process? This was a minerals deal. No peace was being brokered here. Not even solid assurances. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/framework-agreement-us...
> WHEREAS the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022;
It's not being reported on much, but they have moved towards normalizing diplomatic relations and Russia and the US are negotiating the outline of the deal now. Here is a recent video with John Mearsheimer (a foreign policy expert) giving commentary on recent developments. [1] John Mearsheimer was (and still is) completely baffled by the mineral deal which as you point out seems to be a distraction.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1lJBv76J5g&t=15s
[flagged]
Thank you. Agree. This post only makes me like HN less.
Your feelings don't matter.
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?
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.
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?
So it sounds like you are saying it should be for Ukraine to decide whether to continue the war or not?
> 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.
Read my whole reply. I literally addressed that at the end. Read the whole thing before you dismiss something.
> 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.
no they don't get these things.. its just orange man bad brainwash
ok, yes and no.
why does trump need augurs (like scop) to divine a cogent narrative. trump obviously can't and none in his administration can.
the simple explanation; trump is spiteful (e.g. all the references to obama, biden), vance a toadie (unreal, the petulance) , and they can only talk in terms of "deals", TV soap opera trash dialogue. zelensky argues that deals need guarantees. all that is in that 10 minute video, for all to see. clear as day. and we've have observed, with the the same clarity, similar displays (maybe of lesser intensity) the last 10 years or so.
the 4d chess explanation; scop needs to come along (sorry scop to pull you in!, I like your optimism), and we need to trust there's a deep bench actually acting with any sort of cohesive purpose on that vision. unlike the simple explanation, there's very little evidence. usa foreign policy is untethered now, only thing left to do is reading the flight of the birds.
i want to believe, but there is a ton of posthoc rationalizing going on the trump side. it was like this after 2016, a different stable time, after 8 years of blissfully dreadfully boring obama stability. it is not such a time now.
Blis
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.
Context for the crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Note the date on that video
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.
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.
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.
Realpolitik is not a skill common among engineers. I won't begrudge anyone their outrage.
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.
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.
[flagged]
> > "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.
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.
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.
Not today, Russia (or whatever half-assed psyops team you’re on).
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.
> Note the date on that video.
Seems to be 2 years after Russia first attacked in 2014. Why does that matter?
Why does the source of a conflict matter? What a ridiculous question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8
Mearsheimer and Kissinger, your next citation should be Chomsky and then Posadas by my calculations.
Ukraine was never coerced into an anti-Russian agenda, they simply wanted the same security guarantees they're refused today. You shouldn't hinge your entire argument on a video that can be refuted in a single sentence.
Trump is a straightforward man?
Trolololololololol
Can we get downvoted comments look regularly and not faded completely out? Silencing people cause their opinion is not popular seems very redditish
Agree. This graying out thing is a terrible design for contentious topics, and isn’t conducive to curious conversations.
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.
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.
When Israel invaded Gaza we let them
Because Biden supports Israel, same story with Ukraine.
[flagged]
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/02/18/which-co...
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Because you don't overrun a nuclear state with weapons, but with influence and the true promise of scaling up.
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.
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?
> Their leader sucks, but so does ours
But people voted for one and not the other.
Wow what on earth did I just read xD
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.
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.
Zelensky has said he will step down if US provides security guarantees. Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/23/europe/ukraine-zelensky-resig...
…security guarantees which the US does not want to give. So who’s at fault here?
Zelensky is not responsible for this exchange. Are you honestly suggesting cower to a false autocrat? That is not leadership.
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?
We don't want WW3. I voted for Kamala and I still DO NOT WANT WW3.
You can choose to not start it, you can't force others not to — peace needs all parties, war only needs one.
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
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?
Not make it political… you’re joking right?
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.
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.
My read on the situation is that Zelensky is willing to make any deal for lasting peace. Meaning, if a deal is made and Russia ignores the ceasefire or continues its invasion in a month or year, what will happen to them? This is literally what he asked because Russia has violated all of the previous agreements in the same way.
What Trump was offering was to take a chunk of their resources for another temporary peace offer. Which as noted above, will almost certainly be violated in the near term by Russia again. So Ukraine is not only back where they started, but also lost a chunk of their resources. Why would Zelensky agree to that?
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.
An 85-min video wasn't exactly what I was looking for :)
But appreciate you sharing.
It's WELL worth it in my opinion :) Cheers!
It's good to be exposed to different views, but that guy takes the point he's trying to make too far. He blames everyone but Russia for the war Russia decided to start in 2014 and expand in 2022.
Russia invaded Ukraine. Not the US, not NATO, not the EU. It was Russia. It's very important to remember who did what.
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.
Mersheimer is mostly wrong. I urge you to seek alternate sources.
Mersheimer is not my source nor my reference. my source are the messages I receive from cousins on the battlefield.
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.
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 !
mersheimer, who premisses his theory on 'Putin never lies'. Such reality.
Zelensky is just one person, rest of the Ukraine govt will play realists
Can anyone tell me what the alternative is that would result in less people dying? This needs to stop NOW.
So when your country will be attacked you will give up your lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?
In a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.
Do boundaries matter more than people dying? Genuine question.
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
> 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 Orbán is pro-Putin. Why is it the case?
>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?
> 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?
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.
Depends on specific boundaries, but literally all of human history is about fighting for people's rights to hold one boundary or another
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?
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.
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.
Probably yes, but he premise is wrong. You know P being a villain and all that.
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.
Well, that is people dying. I personally want less people dying, by whatever means necessary.
Fewer
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.
> 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?
> 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...
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.
I was referring to those specific territories Russia claimed to want.
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?
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.
> 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?
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?
My country had a coup in 2014 in order to install a leader friendly to US intel agencies. "Freedoms" were already flimsy.
Who led the coup in "your" country?
Absolutely yes
Really? Even if that would result with your new living conditions to be literally North Korea style or the worst of islamic terrorist state?
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…
You know what hypothetical question is?
Life in Russia is not like North Korea/Islamist country because it's literally not. Kind of retarded hypothetical.
skill issue
There is no alternative. Europe tried to peacefully coexist with Germany in the 1930s. Standing up to imperialist dictators is the least bloody option.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
The only way to be worse, is to actually use them.
Then you're starting to see my point.
Would you rather surrender salami style, or the whole bratwurst?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
Putin is already a threat, without actually using the weapons.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Europe needs to deploy troops to Ukraine to secure the current border.
No other way from stoping Putin.
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.
[flagged]
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.
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.
> 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?
[dead]
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
But you don't go say it to the US President, least of all Trump, in front of cameras!
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?
Zelenskyy: A lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems, even you, but you have a nice ocean and but don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.
Trump: You don't know that.
Zelenskyy: God bless, you will not have a war...
So, it is what it is, and you need to be careful of what you say when dealing with people like Trump, especially in front of the cameras.
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.
[flagged]
Old video, seen it, has some more or less valid takes, but at the end of the day it's been Russia that attacked Ukraine.
And pundits and scholars about this being geopolitical chess games in eastern Europe are largely, albeit not completely, mistaken. This has always been about Putin's fear of democracy in Russia and him losing the grip in his own country. It is no coincidence that Russia attacked Ukraine a month after the unrest in Kazakhstan[1], few weeks after Russian military helped crush it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest
Try entering Mexico in a military pact with China/Russia and watch what happens.
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
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.
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
This isn't just trolling or good TV. It's doing severe and permanent damage to US foreign policy.
Both can be simultaneously true
Are you talking about Trump or Zelensky here?
Haha, every politician is learning that they win by manipulating the press and algorithms these days. Is there an option C for both?
> these days
I would argue all days
> Is there an option C for both
absolutely :)
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.
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?
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.
it sounds like you're preferring status quo. I'm saying that status quo has failed.
Could you explain further? Specifically in the context of this discussion/today’s meeting and conduct?
I really couldn't have been any clearer, so I don't know what to tell you.
>Trump was elected on negotiating a peace
Right
And days after the election he started threatening potential military force to acquire Greenland and Panama, and economic force to annex Canada.
The reasons he was elected are irrelevant, only his actions since being elected and taking power are.
Since then, Trump has proposed ethnic cleansing and gentrification of Ghaza, and proposed launching attacks into Mexico (putatively to take out cartel members). Anyone who thinks that Trump or his administration are looking for peace or peaceful solutions is clearly delusional.
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.
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?
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_manufa...
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)
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.
[flagged]
You keep saying peace, but if Ukraine stops fighting without security guarantees from countries like the US they get murdered, raped and their children abducted by Russia. How do we know? The war started in 2014, not 2022.
That's the truth that Trump won't acknowledge and common us opinions don't have the understanding of. It's inconvenient and annoying. The only person who can stop this war and bring peace is Putin. Trump could try forcing him, but it's easier just to sacrifice the entire country of Ukraine?!
> The war started in 2014
Exactly! This is the key. Why do you think Trump was the first US president that didn’t see Putin mount an offensive during his term? Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth during his first term, while being sure not to escalate with Putin. He carried a big stick but also didn’t provoke. Ukraine in NATO is unacceptable for Putin. Fact of life. US wouldn’t want Chinese military defenses in Mexico. Biden admin and Europe seem obsessed with this, but Ukraine in NATO ain’t gonna happen without risking a hot war with A FUCKING NUCLEAR POWER. We either end this now or at the very least drive Russia further into China’s arms or provoke a real WW with millions dead. This isn’t just good vs evil. Reality sucks sometimes, but you gotta deal with it. Trump admin is completely ready and willing to provide arms and aid to Ukraine, just as they did in first term. But we’re sick and tired of seeing endless aid further provoking a nuclear power with absolutely nobody envisioning an end other than “we beat Putin”. All the while we deplete our munitions, supplies, money, and have Russia-China rise.
It's best to read HN in reverse order to get true diversity of thought.
Also recommend custom stylesheet to unhide the grey-text posts.
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
cancelling a scheduled press-conference without signing a deal is not major?
That one media guy asking about Zelensky's lack of a suit and it being disrespectful to the Oval Office. Completely out of touch, the man has about a million other things to worry about than that.
It's as a prop to make him look hard af. Is he IN combat regularly? No.
Musk doesn't wear a suit in the Oval Office, is that disrespectful?
Musk is not a world leader.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was Russia happy about those countries joining NATO or did it protest? Were the relationships between the East and the West better so that this was of less concern? Was Russia weaker and had less power to resist? I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern.
How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
I am not determined to believe anything, I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. I can give you countless examples over several decades where Russia protest NATO expansion and threatened consequences. Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? And before you say On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, make sure you actually read it.
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?
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.
How do you square your beliefs with the fact that Russia took Crimea, decided that wasn't enough, and went back for more?
The NATO declaration from the 2008 Bucharest Summit was that Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members, both unacceptable for Russia. Georgia was promptly invaded in 2008. Until 2014 under president Yanukovych Ukraine did not seek closer ties to NATO. That changed in 2014 and Russia annexed Crimea. [1] While Russia wanted the Minsk agreements to work, the West just used them as tools to buy more time. Despite repeated protests and demands from Russia right until the invasion, NATO position did not show any signs of change. So in my opinion that is all just escalation to get NATO to accept the demands or prevent a NATO membership with force. Even in the negotiation in the first weeks of the war, Russia was willing to end the war for non-membership of Ukraine.
[1] The timeline in late 2013 and 2014 is somewhat confusing with respect to my point of view, the turn towards NATO seems to come after the annexation and the events in eastern Ukraine. But there might have been an element of anticipation or non-public information.
Russia's opinions on Ukraine's alliances do not give them the right to invade a sovereign nation.
Ukraine wants security guarantees. A ceasefire without security guarantees is an opportunity for Russia to resupply and attack again.
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.
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.