- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Good Nazi is a dead nazi
Yet you support russia, interesting juxtaposition
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.
do go on
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.
Someone has to pay for the weapons. Duhh
This thread is full of tankies justifying Russian imperialism yet again
Anybody who justifies Russian imperialism is not a leftist - in fact, they are actually a fascist
Whataboutism? This post is about the US and Ukraine, not about Russia
Then why do people feel the need to defend Russia?
Pointing out the defence of something unrelated isn’t Whataboutism
You can’t see a post about the two-sidedness of US policy without invoking the Russians.
Then it’s fine to call them out when they show up
You even have (or had if mods did anything) some loser saying the US overthrew Ukraine with a far-right coup even though everyone knows that’s not true
even though everyone knows that’s not true
Source: it is known
There are relatively few comments in the thread talking about Russia at all, and calling the Euromaidan a US coup is not Russia apologism, it’s literally discussion about US+Ukraine.
You’re right and it’s telling that someone gave you a down error for a non-controversial opinion
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.
It’s confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.
Trump works for the rival gang though. He’s just demanding the minerals so the dipshits will blame the USA instead of Russia. Putin gets what he wants to steal and he looks good in the eyes of the pro-authoritarian class traitors in this thread.
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…
its like the memoradum, where ukraine wasnt invited and like the sudentlands with ww2 nazi germany, the countries in question wasnt allowed at the table. and in recent history , israel was unilaterally given without hte palestines in attendance.
I am once again begging liberals to learn any history other than WW2. (And ideally actually learn about WW2 as well)
Fair point… Don’t know much about history…
But I know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world it would be
its worst for younger people, some dont even know about WW2 at all,
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)
Fait point. Let’s put it that way: Trump is trying to share Ukraine’s resources with Russia the way laymen understand Nazi Germany and USSR agreed to devide Poland’s territory in 1939.
since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.
I’d dispute that based on the fact that they declared war on Germany immediately when Hitler invaded Poland, dispite the fact that he was closing the buffer to the USSR. The capitalists’ real hope was that Hitler would be more of a bulwark, a guard dog who would be content suppressing communists within Germany’s own borders and being militarized and prepared in case the USSR tried to expand. Hitler was granted a lot of leeway in that hope, and it’s possible he misread that as either weakness or wanting him to attack the Soviets. But and the end of the day, if he wanted to fight the USSR, and Britain and France wanted him to fight the USSR, then he would’ve wound up fighting the USSR with little conflict with the other Allies, possibly even with their support. There’s a grain of truth to what you’re saying but imo it’s exaggerated and doesn’t fit with the facts/timeline.
I’d dispute that based on the fact that they declared war on Germany immediately when Hitler invaded Poland
They already had a mutual defense agreement with Poland, that’s why they intervened at that point. Additionally, they didn’t want Nazis to get too big because they were competing for resources and markets, as are all capitalist nations.
I find it very easy to believe that the very nations that invaded the Bolsheviks during the Russian civil war and supported the tsarists with no other reason than to attempt to destroy communism, would be happy to see Germany destroy the Soviet Union which, as a nation which had only began to industrialise in the late 1920s (compared to the extra century that Germany and England had had to industrialise), was very weak in military industrial capabilities.
In any case I understand that that’s just my opinion based on historical precedents, and there may be more nuance. However, I seem to share the same point of view of many western allies from the period:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
“One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
“We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)
“It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)
Britain and France also had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, which they sacrificed. I’m very confused about where exactly Germany was supposed to invade from without a shared border, and the fact that Britain and France had an alliance with Poland in the first place contradicts the idea that they wanted Germany to invade the USSR.
Of course there was no love between them and the USSR and the capitalists were persuing material interests and all, but there was also a widespread hope/belief that WWI was “the war to end all wars.” “Peace in Europe” was a major political selling point.
I read all of your quotes and none of them seem to support your narrative over mine. My only point of disagreement with you is whether Britain and France wanted Germany to invade the Soviet Union, not about the Soviet assessment of the situation. It’s not even that big of a disagreement, I agree that they wanted to use Hitler but it’s clear they wanted to keep him on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense, not offense. It shouldn’t be that hard to believe that the powers that be wanted to preserve the status quo and their position in it rather than throwing everything into chaos.
You make the point yourself that they didn’t want “The Nazis to get too big” but if they invaded the Soviets and emerged victorious, they’d be much bigger and pose a major threat to the other Allies (of course, there was also the possibility the USSR won, which would also pose a threat).
it’s clear they wanted to keep him [Hitler] on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense
This is basically the thing I’m arguing. The Soviet Union was never an expansionist project in the military sense (they wanted to spread the revolution abroad, such as by assisting the Republicans in Spain and giving weapons to the Vietnamese in their anti-imperialist struggle), never projecting their military force outwards except as a response to serious provoking by third party foreign actors (such as in the case of the funding and arming in Afghanistan of radical theocratic militias by the US).
The fact that all of these western leaders talk of the USSR using the Molotov-Ribbentrop as an “odious but necessary defensive measure”, proves to me that they understood that the USSR wasn’t something they needed to be militarily defended of by a weaponized Germany acting as a buffer, hence that can’t be understood as Germany’s role in the situation in my opinion.
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
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
0·8 days 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.
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
Lemmy has a lot of Russia spam. Just browsed OP’s history.
Only Russian dogs like Trump think this is debt. Fuck it go to war, draft maga and send waves of them into the meat grinder no one gives a fuck. Ukraine is entitled to all the defense they ask for period. All true Americans agree on this.
Nato had 3 years to do anything about this and have only more started talking about a second branch of defense, eu army. That is not something Americans will take blame for. Put your money where your mouth is and help Ukraine with more than left over bullshit from your dusty reserves.
Everyone, please report racist comments like these. There’s no need to respond to them.
Just curious, how exactly is that comment racist?
Standard blue maga comment, blaming all the US’s problems on foreigners, and claiming that trump is a “russian dog”, and not a standard white supremacist / imperialist in the tradition of all US presidents.
But… How is that racist?
It might be stupid, but racist? That’s a stretch.
I didn’t see the original comment nor do I need to, but ethnic nationalism, the ‘blood and soil’ kind of nationalism, seeks to forge nationality into the same framework as race. Approaching nation states from this perspective is effectively racist, inherently so.
This is compared to civic nationalism where commitment to national values matters. So one could argue that without clarification it is a stretch, but at the same time… it’s usually pretty clear which version is meant.
The same way that Nazi’s blaming all of Germany’s problems on “Judeo-Bolshiviks” was rascist
I did a little writeup brainstorm the other day, om which I reached the same conclusion, that “Russo/Sino-Tankieism” is to Lemmy what “Judeo-Bolshevism” was to Nazi Germany. I’m glad to see you’re reading the words out of my mind
Referring to another nationality as animals is dehumanizing in contexts like this.
If Dems didn’t think it was debt then maybe they should have sent weapons gifts instead of weapons loans.
Gringos might fall for the good cop bad cop shit but the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month and we know that Dems build the bulldozer and wail when Republicans wreck shit with it.
… the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month …
i’ve always wondered if this is because of the suffering it’s causes; you remember injuries that others have visited upon you, but you forget them easily if you’re the one causing the injury.
The axe forgets but the tree remembers
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.
The monumental level of troll farming performed by the Russian state suggests they are deserving of few allies.
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.
We’re currently more of a “global power” then they are.
There’s a reason why the peace talks for Ukraine are between the US and Russia and the EU isn’t invited. Nobody takes Europe seriously anymore. The only thing resembling global power that Europeans have is their remaining colonies.
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.
Our implosion isn’t so slow these days.
Going to start threatening to bomb Texas if it doesn’t hand over its oil reserves, at this rate.
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.
Take the Russian propaganda elsewhere.
Fact check me.
How should I prove that the Euromaidan wasn’t some right wing CIA coup? How do you prove a negative?
So you’re not simply claiming the events weren’t as described. You’re claiming they didn’t happen at all, and there was no transfer of power at all? Wow.
That is not at all what I claimed and I don’t understand how you could interpret what I said as meaning that.
Sure, and Russia had their right-wing coup in 1991, and America is currently doing a self-coup.
The US was taken over in a coup when Kennedy was assassinated. We’ve been ruled by the CIA ever since.
Eh, while they’re part of maintaining the status quo, we’re ruled by capital, and that was true before Kennedy too.
And the CIA has always been an attack dog of the capitalists. That’s its whole mission.
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 kinda similar to what is happening in the US right now
And your evidence for the US installing this government is what exactly?
Let me say this as a westerner - if someone all of a sudden tried to put me in a Putinist puppet state, shit would burn. To the ground.
Im assuming you aren’t American, then 👀
based man, I’m so sad about this… hope EU+UA will forge an even more powerful alliance!
Hey, you’ll be hearing from americas 🇺🇸 lawyers. This is copy right infringement. That is trade marked ip.
Current likelihood is that there’s only a mineral deal if US pays Zelensky/Ukraine to fight more. Security guarantees don’t actually cost anything until you have to do something, and its pretty likely that any weapons would be used to provoke aggression during ceasefire instead of protecting Ukraine’s neutrality.
It’s Europe that wants war more than US, and so it’s far more likely they get the mineral deal to keep going to the last Ukrainian.
Nemiroff 🇺🇦
So I’ve been repeatedly permabanned from Reddit for saying what is sometimes pretty innocuous shit. I’m reluctant to share my true opinion here beyond: Trump should be impeached again, and “snuggled” for treason. Or maybe lined up in front of a brick wall and “comedy-roasted”. Let’s see what happens here…
Though I do also want to establish that any time I say some folks should be lined up in front of a wall…it’s because they should be roasted like a comedy special. And also, you know, when I refer to the punishment for treason…it’s snuggles.
EDIT: please don’t permaban me, that shit is annoying.
In some weird way, snuggles and comedy-roasts seem to be the perfect punishment for Trump. Not the easy way out, but humiliation, which is the only thing he is afraid of.
You and I share the same opinions. I was also permabanned from reddit. “Health” to Trump!
GODDAMMIT, MARY!!
