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
The only thing worst than a strong enemy are weak allies.
With rare exception (Israel) America can seem downright schizo from administration to administration.
Not even just changes in administration. The U.S. will often suddenly move on or just decide you will work better as a villain for internal politics. The US basically told Saddam Hussein that we wouldn’t care if he invaded Kuwait only to then use that invasion as justification to make him a boogeyman for the next decade.
That’s not what happen.
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.
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.
Nemiroff 🇺🇦
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.
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.
You and I share the same opinions. I was also permabanned from reddit. “Health” to Trump!
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.
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!
I guess those values like Nazism and goals of cultural suppression of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas was all just to “protect their families”
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.
Ukraine was always getting stripped of its resources and immiserated; the IMF loan required them to privatize and sell off their ports, power grids, factories, schools, etc for pennies.
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.
umm actually history started on February 24th, 2022 ☝️🤓
It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years
And Putin, out of the kindness of his heart, sent soldiers in to kill more civilians and rape children, so he could seize territory and strip Ukraine of it’s natural resources.
Raped children? I read a lot of western news and I never heard about that.
The report:
In the cases we have investigated, the age of victims of sexual and gendered-based violence ranged from four to 82 years. The Commission has documented cases in which children have been raped, tortured, and unlawfully confined. Children have also been killed and injured in indiscriminate attacks with explosive weapons.
I followed the sources they link and the ones those link and found that the best substantiation they have is “according to the accounts collected by some NGOs”.
I don’t doubt there must be unspeakable shit happening, there’s been a war for so long that monsters are bound to take part. But I’ll hold my judgement as to how systematic it is until evidence is presented, not just claims by notorious liars who said the same shit about Hamas without any evidence and no pushback from these very same publications.
Fucked up. War sucks
UN back at it again with “we have witness testimony but no evidence of this adversary of the US doing horrifying acts”
Or:
"We have found the evidence to be nonexistent, the case to be exaggerated, the timing and backers to be suspect
But US media needs a soundbite so here’s a short dismissal and a long condemnation"
According to the report though there have just been some cases of Russian soldiers doing it. There doesn’t appear to be the weaponised use of sexual violence a la Isreal, but ya wars are always like this. I’ll never understand the people who simp for them.
Edit: Before any one wants to call me out for minimising SA
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings
Literally every war ever is full of SA
And the report provides… zero evidence. How come there’s plenty of evidence for Ukraine’s crimes (always discredited as Russia propaganda) but Ukraine can just say shit and it’s up to everyone else to prove they’re lying?
Yes it’s been posted. Thanks
Libs really do just have the one line for every enemy of the State Department don’t y’all? First it was Hamas, now it’s Russia, and y’all never bring a source.
Probably because you know once you do bring one we’ll let you know the article only points to credible anonymous sources as always.
Russia is a Nazi country doing Nazi shit and you aren’t a leftist if you’re defending Nazi shit.
Oh look, holocaust trivialization
Calling a Nazi a Nazi is not “Holocaust trivialization”.
Yeah, and what you did was Holocaust trivialization
You need a source that Russia is invading Ukraine? bruh just ask Putin
You know very well I need a source that contains any evidence to the claims that Russians are systematically raping children. But it’s easier for libs to fight windmills than it is to walk back jingoist stances they readily swallowed without any evidence and repeat as fact.
Us in the global south know that white westerners like to paint their opponents as monstrous animals at the slightest provocation to justify their genocidal drives. So either prove your accusations or shut the fuck up.
Do you have a source that Putin sent soldiers to rape children?
So, just NBC news doing the usual and boosting baseless claims like it did about Hamas and beheaded babies? Do y’all even read the shit you post or do you just skim for a headline that matches what you want to say?
The report cites no evidence and only points to “anonymous sources” (how surprising). NBC also doesn’t cite any evidence and points to other articles posted by themselves, one of which says are in the process of collecting the evidence but:
Experts worry that investigations could be less efficient and that some evidence could be mishandled or not make its way to investigative teams with the International Criminal Court and the Prosecutor General’s Office in Ukraine
Really convenient. Excellent standards of proof as always. No wonder the ICJ has denounced the lawfare of Ukraine.
The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of proving facts.’
Indeed.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g24/037/31/pdf/g2403731.pdf
Here is the report right from the UN.
That article doesn’t contain anything about Putin sending soldiers to rape children. Did you post the wrong link?
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.
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?
97% in favour of Crimea joining Russia. Western polling was a solid 70%+. The new 2014 regime was legitimately divisive to the point that the majority ethnic Russian populations in Ukraine did not want to submit to them.
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?
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.
So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?
Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized.
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?
America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan
Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/
With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.
Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.
The US didn’t need to do a damn thing
Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it.
You are backing the Russian invasion of Ukraine which they did to steal minerals and you are criticizing the US doing the same now that POTUS is a Russian asset?
i was wondering why i suddently see russian-imperialism apologists in the comment sections
but then i noticed I’m in the federated global feed particularly lemmy.ml
i really need to block this instance
Imma be honest with you chief the amount of times I come here for funny leftist memes and then see a bunch of pro imperialistic takes or starting school yard “nuh uh your crimes are worse then my crimes” is so draining.
I get that when you gather a bunch of people under one banner of a nuanced concept you are gonna get a range of people from mild mannered to fanatical about it.
Like this must be why people throw around “othering” loaded terms like tankie and liberal in here.
This is why I wish it was just high level concept lefty memes, cause you’ll never get satisfying low level discussion online, just high level screeching and slap fights. So now I just try to not engage, just look for memes to talk to people IRL about instead.
thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh… What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?
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.
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.
It’s confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.
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.
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)
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
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
0·7 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?
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.
I am once again begging liberals to learn any history other than WW2. (And ideally actually learn about WW2 as well)
its worst for younger people, some dont even know about WW2 at all,
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
“Buyer to collect”?
Hey, you’ll be hearing from americas 🇺🇸 lawyers. This is copy right infringement. That is trade marked ip.
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.
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
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.
