thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh… What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?
Good Nazi is a dead nazi
Yet you support russia, interesting juxtaposition
do go on
They draw swasticas on their minds litary vehicles.
Should just buy a tesla
And russians have neonazis congrats.
Every western country has neonazis, but only Ukraine has them in top levels of government and military.
Only Ukraine? You are one of those guys who saw Elon’s “gesture” and thought “holly-molly! what an awkward-moving guy”?
Nah, Elon did a nazi salute. Fascism in US shouldn’t shocking to anybody who’s even minimally historically literate. German nazis pretty much used the US as the model after all.
3 years before they even allowed sale of 3rd party F-16s and a nonstop barrage about how effective the 90s era surplus we sold to Ukraine was gonna magically win the war.
I got banned from NCD for sharing this sentiment saying that there was literally no outcome where the US would allow Ukraine to join NATO, regardless of the acting government.
NCD is basically a NATO fanclub, so that checks out.
Almost as if a preventable policy shift happened.
That would be a compelling argument (unpredictable policy shift) if it hadn’t been predicted by socialists all over the world when the war started
Socialists predicted that the US would cozy up to russia?
Socialists predicted that Ukraine would be betrayed by the US, there’s literally a 2+ year-old meme in the comment section of this post with the picture of Zelensky being welcomed by Gaddafi, Saddam and Bin Laden
Funny wojak faces but to clear up an apparent misconception here, Ukrainian weren’t fighting for abstract concepts like “freedom” and Democracy", they were fighting to stop Russian soldiers from killing their families, raping their children, and burning their homes to the ground.
I hope this helps!
Ukrainians were/are still fighting to defend themselves from an illegal invasion. But America sees and has always seen Ukraine as a proxy to weaken a geo-strategic rival. NATO was not realistically on the table as long as the conflict in the Donbas was ongoing (it would have immediately triggered art.5) to keep promising NATO instead of working on a more realistic path to peace has probably caused the death of 100000s of Ukrainians. And just as with many other imperial proxies in history, the proxy is left to deal with the fallout while the empire retreats to the metropol and prepares for the next conflict.
Really spot on except America isn’t exactly retreating, it’s just now under the leadership of an administration that would prefer to have Russia as an ally.
Instead of two imperialist powers fighting via proxy, they could just work together and strip smaller counties of their natural resources, side by side. Imperialism united.
I think you’ll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians “fighting”) to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.
long before Russia went in
There’s a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko’s government
The Sbovoda interim was also financed by the USA, with Victoria Nuland discussing on a leaked call who to name after they deposed Yanukovich.
Russia had troops in Crimea as requested by the Crimean government, which also seceded via referendum after said coup, as is its right under Ukrainian law. That proved to be the right move given that they didn’t have the astronomical number of casualties that Donbas had, with over 14 thousand dead before 2022, most of them civilians, and a huge number of injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure as per the Donbas documentary.
If America’s goal was to put Svoboda in power, they didn’t do a very good job of keeping them there, did they?
I have read the Nuland transcript. She’s talking about the existing leader of the opposition. Of course she said Yatsenyuk was the guy, he was the goddamn leader of the opposition. He was the one guy avalable with the best democratic mandate at the last election. Yanukovych even offered to make him prime minister at one point.
Russia put troops into Crimea before the referendum, and the referendum was run by the occupying army. Do you normally trust occupying armies to run referendums about whether or not they should get to keep the land they’re occupying?
Perhaps if Russia was so concerned about casualties in the Donbas, it should not have invaded and caused hundreds of thousands more casualties.
Lmao so the US did finance them, did appoint their best liked interim, did have congresspeople on the ground supporting the coup, did send in the money to arm the Nazis but just… quietly let democracy take its course once they spent all that time and money? America doesn’t give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they’ll take anyone who’ll toe the line.
I want to give y’all the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you think we’re stupid but sometimes I think there’s a more obvious answer.
Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU. The US didn’t need to do a damn thing to influence that, a long history of Russian imperialism did it all for them
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan (pg 167). They simply did not spend “all that money”, because a single digit millions of dollars a year is a rounding error in the US budget. American spending on Ukraine in 2013 was 0.00024% of the federal budget.
If Ukrainians already wanted to align with the EU, then why did they democratically elect Yanukovych, which the US subsequently couped in coordination with the Banderites?
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
This was always Ukraine’s fate.
The OG coup happened under the Obama admin, the far-right were forced into government under Trump pt I, Ukraine was forced to sell off state assets and take billions in loans by the Biden admin, and now the US is preparing to pick the bones clean over the next decades.
It’s nice that yall are recognizing that the US isn’t there to help the Ukrainian people now, but we’re all gonna repeat this next war.
I stopped being Charlie Brown falling for the football 23 years go, when I saw that the consent manufacturing for the second Iraq war rested on no hard evidence.
Edit to add that the bone picking has been going on for two years already. Everything must go, including seaports.
Libya was what got me, i was a chump cheering while i watched it on CNN but the more I thought about it the less sense it made then i read the shock docturine and some chomsky. Libya went from the highest score for quality of life in africa to literal slave markets. For what? So some slimy fucking americans can take their resources instead of negotiating for them?
Rome creates a desert and calls it peace.
Who would’ve thought the government that installed a far right government in a coup wouldn’t have the best intentions?!
See, I can’t tell if you’re talking about America, Russia, or Ukraine.
I get what you’re saying, but to clarify I was speaking of the 2014 Maidan Coup where the US installed a far-right puppet government.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
People get these confused a lot, but russia has 2 coups in the 90s-
1991 was a failed anti-reformist “left wing” coup that deposed Gorbachev and ended with the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin in power.
1993 was a successful right wing self-coup that allowed Yeltsin to fully consolidate power away from the Russian parliament and towards the presidency. More hamfisted and violent, but in essence similar to what is happening in the US right now
history truly is a flat circle
How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.
As far as OBL goes, the US armed and trained his faction against the soviets during the soviet-afghan war.
Again the CIA gave money to the ISI who gave money to fixers who decided who got money. The US soldiers training them doesn’t make them an ally of the USA.
Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.
No, because we actually have negotiated signed treaties with Ukraine. Are ypu confused as to what an ally is?
We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.
Ukraine didn’t cease to exist when the administration was removed. Why would you think that would be the case? They still go by the same name and hold to all their relative treaties other than those involved in their invasion.
We have all sorts of agreements with Ukraine including ones that provide military responses which seems to be a fairly significant sign they are an ally. They are not any more now that the USA is aligned with Russia once again.
Why would you think the Ukrainian government isn’t an ally of the USA? Why would you think the treaties and agreements made by previous administrations aren’t still in place?
US is fatal even for itself
US is in a state of slow implosion. Rest of the world needs to look at collaborating while excluding the US.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
I strongly encourage all nations to begin violating US intellectual property rights. Nations like India already do so with pharmaceuticals.
Eventually other nations will need to take on the mantle of tech and pharmaceutical research and development and we don’t want to live in a world where all this progress is lost.
Americans have chosen to nuke their own democracy and we need to minimize the damage done to the rest of the world as much as possible.
My guess is China will fill the void left by the disintegration of USAID in order to boost its global standing.
China will take large chunks. But I think we will also see a decentralization as china won’t be able to take it all. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil and so on will probably increase their regional soft powers a lot.
This process also already started years ago, but will be catalyzed by this.
Russophobia has been the big disease, really created by US/USAID/NED/CIA. Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China. Trump is literally forcing the world to liberate itself from US. The US is still a nice market, but China is much larger to sell into, and tariff wars are not likely to bring investments into the US.
A multipolar world makes as much obvious sense as democracy. But it is pretty remarkable that US is pushing for it now.
Europe seems to need a moment to let go, but if US isn’t forcing them into it, the rest of the world has already been open to Russia and China
I mean, what would Europe need from russia? We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are. Only countries seriously aligning themselves with Russia those days are either extremely weak and near russia and so have 0 choice in the matter or try to play both sides for fun and profit LARPing as Tito.
Cheap energy, labor, and resources and a slightly greater degree of independence from America.
Russia also still holds a lot of their traditional soft power in many countries, including several EU countries. They also greatly increased their softpower by helping to get far right parties into power or at least signinificant influence in several EU countries (like Orban or Germany just 2 days ago).
On the other hand Russia manouvered itself into a very weak geostrategical position lately (Ukraine and Syria). Everyone noticed that and this will likely lead to some restructuring in several regions, unlikely to be in Russias favour.
I currently find it really hard to make assumptions about Russias role in the mid-term future. That is also, why I didn’t mention Russia in my post.
I don’t see any country being able to engineer coups by supporting terrorists as effectively as the US, so I don’t see Russia or other local powers replacing the US’s influence in countries where the left presents a meaningful alternative to neoliberalism.
what would Europe need from russia?
Resources is big one, including infrastructure already in place for energy. Most of the world sides with Russia through this conflict. Even some US colonies have done well playing both sides. Russia is also an export market. World needs Russia to limit global warming. Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work.
yes, sure, but resources, labour and a market isn’t enough to elevate you to a global superpower. I’m not proposing EU going full Juche, just why would anyone agree to anything better for russia than being equal trade partners. All those things are great and useful, sure, but you’re able to get them elsewhere. If you want special treatment you need to bring something unique to the table. Like the US used to be able to bring.
Futile attempts to destroy it, won’t work
I don’t think anybody except maybe putin is trying to do that. At this point everyone would love russia just fucking off and being normal.
The monumental level of troll farming performed by the Russian state suggests they are deserving of few allies.
Isn’t that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That’s really all it boils down to.
The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, they’ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a “red line”—just as they’ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.
Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russia’s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothing—no matter the cost in human lives—to achieve them.
Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation’s existence.
Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federation—just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isn’t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putin’s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isn’t reacting to a genuine security threat—he is manufacturing one to justify his war.
NATO expansion didn’t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isn’t just to stop NATO expansion; it’s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.
Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just vibes? You can dislike or hate Putin while also believing that Occam’s Razor applies, and having a hostile Millitary Alliance on Russia’s doorstep could be seen as aggression by NATO towards Russia from the Russian POV.
I get what you’re saying about perspectives, and I’ll take your question in good faith. Let’s establish some key points:
NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO’s founding principle is collective defense—Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.
If NATO were aggressive, we’d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia’s existence, why hasn’t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATO’s intent. But that’s not what has happened—because NATO isn’t an offensive force.
Putin’s “perspective” is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countries—Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projecting—using the idea of a NATO “threat” as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people” and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isn’t about NATO—it’s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO weren’t the excuse, he’d find another one.
So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesn’t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isn’t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim “lost” lands is.
NATO is a millitary alliance of Imperialist states formed directly to exert pressure on the USSR, and now retains that hostile history with the current Russian Federation. It was led by Nazis including Adolf Heusinger and has performed hostile, anticommunist terrorist operations such as Operation Gladio in order to combat Communism and exert power to maintain Imperialism.
Your analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is purely a character analysis of Putin, and not the legitimate material interests of all countries involved. This form of “Great Man Theory” is genuinely a myopic form of geopolitical analysis that rarely gets at the truth behind why events happen, and instead decides to look at history as though it’s the whims of a few individuals and not the billions of regular people.
Why do you think that what Russia says is true?
Russia said they didn’t poison Alexei Navalny in 2020, but they did. They said they didn’t kill Alexander Litvinenko, and they said they didn’t poison Sergei Skripal, but they did both of those things.
I trust Occam’s Razor, this is consistent with what has happened in the past regarding Russia/NATO relations since NATO’s formation as an anticommunist millitary alliance against the USSR, a history continued into the modern Russian Federation even after the adoption of Capitalism.
Occam’s razor would dictate that Russia is probably lying if they say they’re not interested in Ukrainian minerals, given that the Kremlin has lied about pretty much everything for a long time.
Putin is even saying he wants to sell minerals from Russian-occupied Ukraine to the US. Clearly he wants to profit from minerals in Ukraine.
Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.
This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia’s ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine’s future.
It’s weird to see “leftists” endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that. Russia has maintained for decades now that NATO encirclement is a red line, and that included Ukraine. I’m not “endorsing” anything here, but explaining the cause of the war. Russia is interested in having a buffer zone against NATO, the US is interested in profiteering in the form of loans and mineral rights, and the ruling class of Ukraine is interested in gettting rich off of sending young people to die in a preventable war.
This isn’t a war of “righteousness” or anything, it isn’t good vs evil, but 3 countries with different interests and the Ukrainian people ending up with by far the shortest end of the stick.
No, it started a lot longer ago than that
You can listen to Putin himself and he goes back pretty far in history.
I could, but I think it’s more important to look at what’s actually truly relevant. NATO/Russian relations don’t go nearly that far back.
If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.
But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.
What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
If it was simple mob extortion it would be reasonable. Zelensky originally agreed when he thought the deal would be to pay for American protection.
But Trump wants the money AND wants Ukraine to surrender. Trump is a stupid mob boss who doesn’t understand why “Pay me and I’ll let the rival gang burn your business.” isn’t going to be accepted.
To me, we are back to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, except this time it’s Ukraine instead of Poland and the US replace Nazi Germany…
In my humble opinion, this is nothing like the Molotov-Ribbentrop. Molotov-Ribbentrop gets a lot of bad advertising due to cold war propaganda, but even western leaders in the west at the time like Churchill admitted that the Soviets had no other option (if you want evidence I have plenty of reference, feel free to ask :)
The Soviets spent the entire 30s warning of fascism and trying to build mutual defense agreements with France, England and Poland and they refused systematically, even when in 1939 the Soviets offered to send 1 million troops together with artillery, tanks and planes, to the Polish and French borders on exchange for a mutual defense agreement, but the French and English ambassadors received orders not to engage in actual negotiations and just to postpone the agreement, since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.
Either way even if you fundamentally disagree with what I’m saying, what was the alternative? Poland was going to get steamrolled by the Nazis with or without the soviets controlling the eastern part of it (as proven by the fact that soviets started invading some weeks after the Nazis). What’s more desirable, half of Poland having concentration camps, or the entirety of Poland having concentration camps?
All of this could have been prevented in my opinion if western countries agreed to engage the Nazis together with the Soviet union, as the soviets suggested as an alternative to the Munich agreements. So the lesson in my view is: to fight fascism, listen to socialists (who are the ones who actually defeated most Nazis in the eastern front)
Not to defend the flawed comparison with Trump’s treason, but that’s a very useless take on the M-R pact…
Stalin could have
- not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear
- not attacked the Poles from the rear
- not murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles after high-fiving the nazis after having succesfully attacked the Poles from the rear
I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable than, well, actively teaming up with the nazis
edit: list layout
Stalin could have not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear not attacked the Poles from the rear
Again, please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets.
murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles
I don’t think those numbers are honest, can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high
I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable
Again, how is tens of thousands of deaths in occupied Poland (many of which were Nazi collaborators and bourgeois Polish nationalists) preferable to Nazi occupation? Or can you think of an alternative to either of these two options?
please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets
There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis
can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high
Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)
But I presume that if you’re the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles “must have deserved it” in one way or another, then that number probably couldn’t be high enough anyway
0·1 month agoI ask that you read Denna F. Flemmings, The Cold War and Its Origins 1917-1960, Vol I, at least the chapters regarding the build-up to and early days of WWII (Chapter 4-6/7).
Could you paraphrase the parts of the book that would be relevant?
There were several alternatives, actually
Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis, I’ve asked you already several times to do so and you keep avoiding it. To me, a great alternative would have been the mutual defense agreement that the Soviet Union spent the entire 30s pursuing with England, France and Poland, which the latter countries repeatedly rejected. What’s your alternative?
Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m
That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?
already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles
Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported.
“must have deserved it”
I explicitly mentioned in my previous comment that there were innocents caught in this process of class war and collectivisation of the economy in times of war, which I deeply lament. I just can’t envision an alternative reality where, after a decade of denying mutual defense agreements with the Soviets, there was a better alternative to Soviet occupation as opposed to Nazi occupation.
That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?
Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported
It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well, for Poland and many other conflicts.
Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis
I just can’t envision an alternative reality
Well, I think that’s the main issue here. Siding with the nazis, attacking Poland in the rear when they were fighting the nazis, committing horrible crimes against the Polish population and POWs … You really, really cannot imagine not having to do even one of those
