this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
149 points (95.2% liked)
World News
34789 readers
445 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
That’s a lot of stuff about President Trump and the elections but nothing as far as I see about the bipartisan stance that Ukraine isn’t going to join NATO.
The Hill yesterday: Zelensky: US ‘didn’t want us in NATO’ even before Trump
The comment you missed two days ago due to defederation: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/5979621
You want some kind of evidence that the USA was never going to permit the Ukraine to join NATO? What would this look like?
They dangled this carrot to start their proxy war and once it got going immediately recanted.
Biden says it 'remains to be seen' whether Ukraine will be admitted to NATO
Biden 'looks forward' to Ukraine NATO membership, just not now
Russia has been consistent that NATO membership would be a declaration of war by the US/NATO, so it would mean the end of civilisation. It's an absurd idea. As much as Russia forming a military alliance with Cuba and Mexico.
Lemmy.world has defederated lemmygrad, so Irish_link can't see your comment.
Which is why it's the only one that isn't massively downvoted lmao. Libs ask for sources and downvote them to avoid reading.
No kidding?
Yeah. You put about 3 times the effort on your first point but have a shit ton of sources for your second. Doesn’t add up.
Also Robert Mueller was prevented from looking into the money trail during the investigation that’s why he found nothing. Puppet.. maybe not but influenced absolutely. Why the heck would the US government do a 180 on our stance of helping Ukraine after President Trump was elected. “We will still maybe kinda possibly help you but you have to give us your rare minerals and be willing to lose land”
This guy doesn’t want to help Americans. Only those who have tons of money. Anything to help line his pockets and his friends.
He has shut down all information flow for health and scientific research. This means we’re sitting in the dark about potential pandemics and deadly diseases. Mpox and the strain of bird flue being the top two at the moment of many people’s list. This doesn’t even touch the measles outbreak in Texas. Measles had essentially been eradicated, but thanks for the anti-VAX push from the right We’re now dealing with something that the prior generations had worked very hard to eliminate.
There hasn't been a 180 degree shift. Under the Biden admin, the Ukrainian government was mass privatising state assets to raise funds for the war. In fact, you can still go to the privatisation website and loot Ukraine with your own hands.
Furthermore, a not insignificant part of the aid is loans (the eu has for instance provided at least one 18 billion loan package, leading to a dramatic increase in ukraine's external debt. The policy towards Ukraine was never generous.
I just took a look through that privization website. Pretty grim.
I didn’t put any effort in. I happened to have those articles on hand already.
Lol
Gee golly mister, I don't know where they came from or why they're here, but I sure am glad they are
leftists collect this sort of information because uninformed shit takes are so incredibly common and so equally uniform that you can literally copy/paste them as a response and it works every single time.
they're an EXCELLENT way of proving that the person is willfully ignorant since it's literally independently verifiable proof that they're wrong and the other person's refusal to consider them serves to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person is talking out of their ass; like it did here.
weird vaguepost but ok
Alright
you clearly are not
Ahhh, the old "Do your own research" strategy, always a classic!
The good old "I wasn't taught and never in my life been interested to learn how to read sources, so I'll pretend they're crackpot so I don't have to read".
I'm confused about the tone and content of your reply. Are you suggesting that someone can read, but only as long as the information being collected isn't a source of information? Also, I'm not sure where the idea that those writers are crackpot came from.