That's what Daddy Putin wants, so that's what Daddy Putin gets.
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
76 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1041 readers
32 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They were never going to get into NATO. Behind closed doors, Ukraine not getting into NATO has been bipartisan consensus for a long time. And Trump is not Putin’s puppet.
You are screaming into the void. The people downvoting you think Butcher Biden is a good person, they are a lost cause.
I can push them left* lmao
Behind closed doors, the consensus has been that other countries don't want to get dragged into the current war in accordance with NATO mutual defense agreements.
But since Trump insists that he can end the war, that's obviously not a consideration for him - by his claims, there will be nothing more standing in the way of Ukraine membership in NATO.
Which makes this announcement that much more significant - essentially what he's saying is that even after the main obstacle to Ukraine membership has been eliminated, the US will oppose it.
Why?
Because... no, Trump is not Putin's puppet. He's something even worse - a cringing sycophant, desperate for affirmation from his strongman idol.
Because… no, Trump is not Putin’s puppet. He’s something even worse - a cringing sycophant, desperate for affirmation from his strongman idol.
If you keep analyzing the current administration through the lens of Jungian analysis of Trump, you’ll keep being wrong. Great man theory is no way to go about analyzing geopolitics.
Source for any of this? Would be interested to know more about these points.
I don’t have sources on hand for the the first point, but I do for the second.
- Wall Street Journal: Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia
- Jacobin: Democrats and Mainstream Media Were the Real Kremlin Assets
- Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
- Jacobin: It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election
- Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork
- Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal On the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
- MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
- Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away
As for the first point, it’s been covered by the likes of John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Michael Hudson, and Glenn Diesen. Some political figures have admitted as much, but unfortunately I don’t recall who off the top of my head.
This is what America wanted. Biden made no effort to provide Ukraine with the weapons to win.
Literally the same words said in December 2021 could possibly prevent:
- invasion of Ukraine;
- death of dozens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and turning of millions of Ukrainians to refugees;
- destruction of dozens of Ukrainian cities;
- loss of Ukrainian territory to Russia;
- loss of Ukrainian rare minerals to US.
The Trump administration is just saying loud what all the other NATO governors have been hiding. No one ever planned to fight Russia for Ukraine and the only destiny for Ukrainian aboriginals is to be used as proxy cannon fodder to fight one of NATO's bogeymen.
NATO countries never cared about Ukraine's casualities to the point that they decided that Ukrainian lives were worth less than a signed piece of paper with the aforementioned statement: 'No NATO for Ukraine'. Everything that happens to the people of Ukraine is just collateral damage on the way to the main goal – to harm Russia. The colonizer mentality (so well known to many NATO countries) never changes.
a tale as old as time itself
Under this deal, Putin gets to annex key territories while Ukraine is kept out of NATO and left without American peacekeepers, forcing Europe to buy U.S. military gear. Imperialist powers divide and weaken working people by keeping nations in chaos and under constant threat. This brief period of "peace" isn't for long as capitalist interests allow Russia to regroup and rearm. Ukraine remains in a disordered, free-for-all state under imperialist influences. In time, this setup could let Russia launch an invasion through Odessa to connect with Transnistria.
Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.
Vibes, vibes, vibes.
Transnistria is a thousand miles from Odessa, twice as far as St. Petersberg, and Pskov is about 400 miles away.
Vibes, vibes, vibes.
No. The material reality is that Transnistria is roughly 100–150 km from Odessa and not the thousand miles being claimed.
Pskov is near the Estonian border, and St. Petersburg is on the Baltic Sea. Neither of these cities is close to Moldova, so they are largely irrelevant to any invasion plans in that region.
It's important to rely on concrete conditions and verifiable data rather than hyperbolic claims and vibing.
Sorry, you’re right. I was thinking of Kaliningrad.
I appreciate the change in direction with the correction, regardless of the circumstances 👁️
Get ready to see a wave of far right terrorist attacks on US/European soil when they realize what we've been ridiculed for saying from day one: they were used as cannon fodder, there was never any intention of NATO membership
What level do you need to be to cast Bubble of Illusion?
Russia will eye Europe, and USA will keep eyeing Canada and Greenland.
With no guarantees of safety from future aggression, why on earth would Ukraine accept such a deal? This whole war started with Russia breaking their previous peace agreement.
Because Ukraine doesn't really have much of a choice in the matter, the entire point of the war was to get to a point where that could be certified. If Ukraine refuses any peace deals, Russia will just continue the war.
If Ukraine doesn't get any security assurances, then they're effectively still at war. This war started after supposedly getting promises of security for ceding Crimea.
They're not the ones pushing this negotiation. If they just wanted to stop the war and give Putin everything he wanted with no guarantees he won't just regroup and invade again they could have done that at any time.
There's also the factor of the Euromaidan coup, NATO encirclement of Russia, and the Ukranian shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk at play. Russia, more than anything, wants Ukraine to either be fully demillitarized or forced into NATO neutrality, and has the means to continue whether Ukraine wants it to or not. If Russia genuinely wanted to, it could keep going until Ukraine is just Russian territory, but I doubt that will end up being the case.
It isn't a moral problem, but a question of who holds the cards. Ukraine can make its loss more devastating for both sides, but has no real path to victory. It is better to sue for peace before more damage is done and lives are lost, clearly Russia is fine to continue as long as it needs to in order to secure its interests.
Ohhh, gotcha. I thought this was a real conversation, not just blindly repeating ridiculous Russian talking points about NATO aggression.
Just because Russia says something doesn’t mean it’s false. Calling something a “Russian talking point,” is not an argument, it’s a thought-terminating cliché.
What part of NATO encirclement is "ridiculous?" Even if I agreed with you that it is "ridiculous," clearly Russia thinks it isn't, which means the motives are still there for Russia to continue pursuing its goals until Ukraine gives in.
This feels more like you dodging having to grapple with that reality than anything else.
Why do you assume sincerity from Russian talking points? Russia already has borders with NATO and didn't go to war to prevent them. The war pushed Finland to join, which is not exactly a surprising result from renewed Russian invasions of conquest.
The whole reason I subscribe to ml politics is because commenters here are less blindly credulous about the disconnect between the statements of American political actors and their actions, but then you just trade it for an infinite well of trust for foreign regimes that at least until recently were blatantly worse.
have you heard of this little thing called geography? Like mountains and stuff? Have you ever actually looked at a map of the region?
NATO expansion:
- George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
- Orinoco Tribune, 2022: Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Al Mayadeen, 2023: Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements
- Jeffrey Sachs, 2023: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
- Jeffrey Sachs, 2023: NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
.
NATO in general:
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
- Gabriel Rockhill, 2020: The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
.
Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:
- Reuters, 2014: Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- Leaked recording between Nuland and Pyatt: audio | transcript
- Counterpunch, 2014: US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: 'I want to bring up a warrior': Ukraine's far-right children's camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
- NYT, 2024: U.N. Court to Rule on Whether Ukraine Committed Genocide
NATO encirclement implies encirclement. Why do you think Russia is going to war in the first place? I don't trust everything Russia says, I think de-Nazification is a convenient narrative given the presence of Azov and other groups, but isn't the driving factor of the war (though is part of it). NATO encirclement is a known tactic, as NATO has origins as an anti-Communist, pro-Imperialist group that was formed to attack the USSR, and had Nazis such as Adolf Heusinger in charge. This is readily available information, from Operation GLADIO to Heusinger's Nazi past.
Why do you think Russia is going to war? What do they gain at the costs associated with the war?
I'm surprised a Nazi like Hegseth wants to help Russia so bad.