this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
431 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2878 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chuymatt@startrek.website 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok. That is until the Ukraine bit. Russia chose to invade. It was made very clear in the press that the US knew what was happening on the border and gave Putin every chance to stop it Ukraine is a sovereign country and did not want more Russian influence and was courting EU membership.

[–] kava@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Ukraine is getting destroyed because they happen to be a small country in between two great powers having a proxy war. Russia is the invader, the aggressor, the one who broke international law.

But US is not naive here. This was expected and planned for a long time before 2022 and a long time before 2014. Proxy war takes two sides to tango. We're not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we're doing it for geopolitical motives. A sort of modern Spanish Civil War. Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don't necessarily align with their interests. Like Chomsky says "we will fight them to the last Ukrainian"

[–] Laser@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The fact that this wasn't a three day operation is in large part sure to the US. But your portrayal of the facts makes no sense. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia). The US obliges because it does align with their interest. But in the end, all international help at scale is motivated by national interest.

Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.

Should a nation only fight with pre-agreed equipment that is at least of a certain age?

Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don't necessarily align with their interests.

Well, they for sure don't align with Russia's.

Like Chomsky says "we will fight them to the last Ukrainian"

Or was it North Korean?

[–] kava@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia).

But who is "Ukraine"?

Who gets to make the decisions? The people of Ukraine? The unconstitutionally appointed government? The one who happens to cooperate directly with the CIA? The government that stems from the series of far-right protests that led to a coup? In a country where US has been pumping money for decades?

It sounds like the logic of Guatemala.

United Fruit Company (whose CEO was brothers with director of CIA) owned large swathes of land to grow bananas. They also owned railroads, telephone lines, and other general infrastructure.

A new democratic movement sparked up in order to take some of that land and distribute it to the people of Guatemala - why should a foreign company own all the farmland? (Similar thing happened in Cuba, except they were successful)

So what happens in Guatemala? A CIA supported coup puts in a new right-wing government. Now that new government cooperated with the USA and made sure United Fruit Company (Chiquita these days) kept the spice flowing.

Now, if you were to tell me "But kava, the Guatemalan government asked the US for help. It's their independent and sovereign decision"

But was it really? Who gets to call the shots?

That's the fundamental question here. I am not discounting sovereignty of Ukrainian people because Euromaidan is NOT the Guatemalan coup. It's a whole different event with a different set of factors and influences. I wouldn't even go so far to say it was a CIA-led coup. Just a CIA-supported one.

But the question is a nuanced one and not so simple as "Ukraine asked for help". It's more like Ukraine had no choice but to ask for help. The power-dynamic is not an equal one - like a teacher having sex with a student. Is it possible for that relationship to be consensual?

Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

Or was it North Korean?

Ukraine is in the process of being destroyed. It's the only country involved in this war that is suffering that fate.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We’re not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we’re doing it for geopolitical motives.

You should be supporting Ukraine because of democracy, sovereignty, and the security guarantees you gave them by signing the Budapest memorandum, remember, when Ukraine gave up its nukes. You are supporting them not because you care about any of that including your promises, agreed, you're too fickle for that, but because you don't want to lose Europe as an ally, a geopolitical motive, because boy can I tell you Europe cares about all four points, more than everything Europe cares about Ukrainians caring, about supporting a rightful struggle by a people dreaming of a better future, and Russia re-igniting imperialist BS. And you'll continue to support Ukraine even if you don't care about Europe because you care about Ukraine not nuking up.

All this, ultimately, just amounts to a French win. They wanted strategic autonomy for Europe for a long while, they considered NATO braindead for a long while, getting the US out of the equation, having everyone see how fickle, unreliable, and of course self-absorbed and self-righteous or self-hating (depending on how that exceptionalism swings) you are, is just what's needed to for the rest of Europe to fully buy into French doctrine. The US is driving nail after nail into the coffin of Atlanticism and the French are loving it.

...and that's another reason why you won't be dropping Ukraine: Because then your military-industrial complex would lose a very affluent customer. Currently European states get shouted at by the French when they buy US instead of European, that voice would fall completely silent because noone would be buying US, any more. Who'd have thunk in the face of Trump greed might just save your geopolitical standing.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

You should be supporting Ukraine because of democracy, sovereignty, and the security guarantees you gave them by signing the Budapest memorandum, remember, when Ukraine gave up its nukes.

Stop spreading misinformation. Read the Budapest Memorandum again, please. There were no security guarantees given by the US.

I believe in democracy and sovereignty - the US state does not.

and that’s another reason why you won’t be dropping Ukraine

What happens to Ukraine does not ultimately matter to US power. Right now it's a convenient place to test new weapons, get battlefield intel, inject some nice cash into defense contractors.

But the real focus is on the East.

All this, ultimately, just amounts to a French win

See, I view the total opposite. It's interesting how people can see the same thing and get different conclusions

After WW2, Europe was essentially made subservient to the US. The threat of the Soviets was very real and the US was the only one that could keep the Soviets at bay. Therefore, NATO was formed. Cue the infamous quote from the first General Secretary - the reason for NATO was "to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out"

After 1991 there was a real hope that Russia could integrate with Europe. No more USSR, no more threat, right? No more reason for NATO, no more reason for hostility. Imagine a Europe where Russia was integrated into the security blanket. Europe would become a superpower by its own right - no need to bow down to the Americans. There was decades of slow attempts at integration (for example with energy like natural gas pipelines)

But that vision never materialized and after a gradual decline in relations, Russia invading Ukraine was the best gift Russia has ever given to the Americans.

It basically started the process of a permanent decoupling of Russia from Europe and it forced the Europeans into the arms of the Americans. Now, Europe has no choice but to align with the Americans.

This is the reason you start seeing populists like Trump start using harsh rhetoric about NATO. "Freeloading Europeans now need to pay their fair share", etc.

The reason why Americans can get away with it now, where they couldn't before, is because Europe has no choice.