On the one hand, fuck the US. On the other, there's literally war going in Europe, you fuckface.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
34 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1946 readers
705 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And it's right next door...
I think each country should evaluation how much they can spend to not slash social and essential services
Shocking, right wing freaks align with Muscovite geopolitical ambitions. This surprises me the same amount every time!
They’re surrounded by friendly countries, any of which would be defended by their allies if attacked. Spending targets are a farce anyway, some countries started meeting them by counting military pensions as military expenditure.
Countries that are genuinely at risk, like Nordics, Poland and Romania should be planning for a future without NATO.
Going to disagree with others here strongly countries shouldn't be vastly increasing their militarism and its destructive effects on the environment and imperialist objectives of most European states even if these aren't the Czech's reasons its still a good thing.
Smart if then. We shouldnt feed the US troll
They should absolutely be spending money to fill the void the US is leaving on defense, and it is leaving a void.
Y'all can't trust the US anymore. That vaccum needs filling.
No we shouldn't. Nato is America, whetehr one likes it or not, without their active participation (equal), there is no need to funnel the money into it. Invest it in to EU army, not American.
NATO isn't likely to keep the US very long, or otherwise Trump is likely to kick the US out.
There's no reason to abandon Canada, now. Don't do that.
The EU army is, among other countries, Czechia. Nobody is sending money in a big envelope stamped: "To: NATO". The spending is all on their national military.
There is no EU army, Czech Army is their own, Nato is an "defense" organisation where parts of other countries armies participate in
oh ok, I was thinking that Mark Rutte himself was flying from country to country to pick it up personally.
I mean... He might be doing that anyway, and getting away with it as usual
NATO was America. Trump has changed that. Especially when he threatened to start a war against NATO, he ended up inadvertedly restructuring the whole philosophy behind what NATO is.
How would that fee the US troll?
The US wanted the war between Ukraine and Russia and is in their Interest that it last as long as possible whilst at the same time making deals wit the same russians. To answer your question, the US used ukraine as a lever to demand more money from other members. Furthermore, money whe are paying for Ukraine, as we speak, is being funneled into Ukrainian support to US and Israel against their illegal war against Iran.
Russia wanted the war between Ukraine and Russia, hence why they invaded and committing genocide as we speak.
The US government are a bunch of gigantic arseholes, but Russia started this.
Furthermore, money whe are paying for Ukraine, as we speak, is being funneled into Ukrainian support to US and Israel against their illegal war against Iran.
Source?
you should read the definition of a genocide first, that would be something like Rwanda or Gaza, Ukraine not. The russians started the official war, the background work and preparations for it were done by many other parties
The US wanted the war between Ukraine and Russia
US wanted the Russia to take over Crimea and Donbas? What for?
the US used ukraine as a lever to demand more money from other members
The money spent to NATO defence does not go to NATO. It goes to Czechia. It means Czechia buying tanks, howitzers, drones and ammunition for Czech stockpiles. I don't think Trump really understood this when demanding we ramp up our defence spending here in EU, but that's not money for NATO. It's a demand that we use more money for our OWN defence. Furthermore, the demand is that 3% should be for direct military use, further 2% should be for any use that is usable also by the military: For example any railway connections that would be useful in the time of a war count as defence spending for those extra 2%.
Czechia or Finland building new railway routes brings zero money for Trump.
In other words: Trump "used Ukraine" as a lever to demand other members spend more money for their own militaries.
...by buying weapons from american companies. Sure, Trump didn't get the money directly, but the companies he is being lobbied by.
...or alternatively, by buying weapons from European companies, giving them resources for expansion, and enabling them to sell their products to countries outside EU that earlier had US companies as their only option.
There was a very complex framework for the division of responsibilities between USA and EU. Part of its point was to keep the EU weapons industry down. USA demanded that EU armies stay small so that USA would have a military hegemony. We were okay with that, because that included USA defending us, should be ever need to be defended. And that meant we saved a LOT of money. Several percents of our GDP could be used for stuff other than military because of this deal. And similarly, USA profited a LOT from having an uncontested military hegemony.
Trump disassembled all of that. I think it is more of a positive thing than a negative one, because I have never liked USA as a country at all. (It's people as a culture, and the nations inhabiting USA, however, have always been fascinating to me!)
Trump surely did imagine we'd buy from American companies, but it is more likely that in the long run the American military companies will lose big time in this change of geopolitical structure Trump has initiated. Remember that Trump did this because Putin wanted so, and all these changes were done to benefit the Russia, not really to benefit USA.
long story short, you are saying that in the long run we will start buying EU weapons. That is a very long run, a marathon. Untill then its uncle sams bodega.
Your point about EU contries wanting to have small armies and stay under US umbrella is wrong. Ask the french, de Gaulle kicked them out in the 50ies. The axis didn't have that choice.
As my last point, here is an quote from Natos first secretary, Lord Hastings Ismay in 1949. "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
Your point about EU contries wanting to have small armies and stay under US umbrella is wrong
That was not my point.
My point was US wanting European countries to have weak armies and stay under US umbrella. And they did what they could in order to achieve that. Also France was using much less than 2% of their budget for defence as a result of US pressure against raising that number.
There's a quote from a NATO person from the 1940's pointing out what I am trying to explain to you: “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Read it, think about it, and take heed!
who in their right sense would then try to defend the organisation ruled by the same ruler that wants to keep the other ones down? to be honest i now dont think you have EUs best interest i mind.
Because in exchange for that, USA showed itself as a country Europe could rely on. The deal also included EU getting a lot of money for all kinds of social benefits and such. The money we didn't have to use in our military was used for better things.
We defended the concept of USA defending us so that we could save a lot of money in our defence budgets.
jesus, stop it. the mental gymnastics are of the charts with you. I'm off, there is no point
one last thing, let me remind you about Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and her famous "Fuck the EU."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
I am eager to hear your opinion about it.
I am eager to hear your opinion about it.
So have many other people before. To be honest, it is extremely tiresome having this same conversation again and again, month after month.
But good, let's go for it again then? Yes, USA definitely had an interest in who would be in the leadership of Ukraine after Janukovych is gone. So did for example Finland. When there were elections in USA in the end of 2024, there were people in the embassy of my own home country, Finland, in Washington DC having conversations about who they would prefer to see as the next president of USA. And various people working in the embassy of Finland in DC did call Helsinki and did have conversations very similar to what you linked there. That's one of the main reasons what embassies exist for, in the first place. They observe what is going on in the country they are based in, report about it back to their own countries' capitals, and also try to influence the outcomes of various events that can affect their own countries' interests. Also the embassy of Finland in USA does this. I am sure they said something along the lines of "Harris is our woman, it is important that she wins the election!" If there was anything the embassy of Finland could do about it, I am sure they did try nudge the US towards having Harris as its president.
This becomes even clearer if you listen to this phone call in the audio format. If you listen to the original conversation while keeping in mind that it's the embassy of USA doing its job reporting to its capital about what is going on and how it affects US interests, you see it's a call that is basically business as usual for an embassy. Yes, trying to influence what is going on.
From my previous experience of having had this same conversation with various people during the past 12 years of this war, next you are likely to say that this phone call proves that during this phone call USA created the conflict that began in 2008 when the Russia for example changed the Russian grammar, demanding that the conjugation of the word "Ukraina" in Russian language should use the forms used for regions of the Russia and not the forms used when talking about independent countries. In 2008 the Russia started preparing for invading Ukraine, and somehow this phone call in 2014 proves to you that USA created the Maidan demonstrations that began with Ukrainian berkut troops beating up unarmed teenagers in the demonstration and their relatives, many of whom were veterans of Soviet-Afghan war, came in their defence, armed. This would mean you implying that USA had a time machine they could use in 2014 to influence what the Russia does in 2008.
I am sure that you are very important and that people want to hear you opinion about things. I am not defending Russia, but Maidan was influenced by the Us, they have their interest as anyone has, but their interest count on coups, wars and co ops. Listen to Jacques Baud talking about it, I'm certain you know who he is. The 2008 crisis was again fueled by the Nato expansion to the east. Btw, take it as you will, Yanukovich was e legitimate President who was took down in a coup. Now, YOU would probably say that he was pro russian, which for again makes sense since almost the entire eastern half of Ukraine is ethnically russian, a fact that people tend to forget or ignore in this narative. The entire discussion was started because I dont agree that Nato should be funded. The rest is basic knowledge. And no, i am not russian.
Yanukovich was e legitimate President who was took down in a coup
That coup was the parliament of Ukraine voting to remove him from the post of the president of Ukraine. It was done according to the laws of Ukraine. It was breaking the laws of the Russia, and Putin is annoyed about that. Just like he is annoyed that there not being elections in Ukraine right not is breaking the laws of the Russia.
I would not call an impeachment done according to the laws of the country a "coup". And I feel that you are either uninformed or intentionally lying when you're calling it a coup.
and the laws cant be malpracticed. i really dont care what you feel, you ignore other points i write and answer with standard floscules. I see you as a extremely pro US and relatively anti EU, and thats enough for me.
That's also probably why I haven't bought products such as Coca Cola and Pepsi since the Iraq war began? :)
And me advocating for further integration of EU and wanting the EU parliament to have much more power over EU decisions than it currently has?
I find the concept of "malpracticing a law" very interesting.
What, specifically, was malpractice here? Except that it was against the will of Putin, and you are on Putin's side? Your anti-EU sentiment seems to be strong.
almost the entire eastern half of Ukraine is ethnically russian, a fact that people tend to forget or ignore in this narative
Dude, 40 % of Ukrainians spoke Russian as their main everyday language in early 2022.
In the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv, that was 70 %. More than two thirds of the people in Kyiv did all of their everyday things almost exclusively in Russian. When they paid the bus driver, they talked in Russian. When they bought milk in those over-the-counter shops that are still prevalent in Ukraine, they asked for it in Russian. And the bus driver and the shopkeep answered them in Russian. And when I lived in Ukraine in 2015 and 2016, practically all of my friends spoke Russian as their main everyday language. That had to do with me knowing Russian reasonably well back then and only knowing the basics of Ukrainian.
Any Russian-speaking Ukrainians I explicitly asked about their mother tongue always gave the same answer to me: "Ukrainian and Russian". I almost never heard them utter anything at all in Ukrainian – they lived their life completely in Russian. But still, they would answer "Ukrainian" in a poll. And not even one of them identified as Russian. They identified as Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Or, more specifically (and a bit funnily, to my eye), as "Ukrainian-and-Russian-speaking Ukrainians".
I am also married to a woman born in the city of Donetsk. Who used to speak exclusively in Russian until September of 2022. And even though she is from the most Russian-speaking city in all of Ukraine, and therefore along the most unambigously Russian-speaking Ukrainians, she has never seen herself as Russian. So, no. Eastern half of Ukraine was not Russian. It was Russian-speaking. And the capital was overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. And still not Ukrainian.
Also, most of the people in the Maidan demonstrations spoke Russian as their main everyday language and spoke Russian with their parents and children and spouses at home. Your claim that it was a demonstration against Russian-speakers in Ukraine is based on a forgetting or ignoring of this narative.
Also...
I am sure that you are very important and that people want to hear you opinion
This sounded very sarcastic. Keep in mind that I started expressing my opinion because of you saying the following:
I am eager to hear your opinion about it.
If you think I am unimportant and my opinion is not of any interest to you, please refrain from saying "I am eager to hear your opinion"
speaking a language and being of certain decent are two different things. i also know many ukrainians, many russians and many deutschrussen. imagine it as a switzerland if you could. or maybe belgium. one country, similar but still different people. rlthere are probably swedish enclaves in Finnland? are they finnish with swedish decent?
They do not see themselves as Swedes. Beside that, I do not understand what you are trying to say with your comment, and cannot react to it in a very meaningful manner.
You referred to a statistic where people's everyday language is incorrectly conflated with their nationality and then used that statistic to claim that the eastern half of Ukraine was identifying as Russians. That statistic was erroneous precisely for the reason you are bringing up: Being of a certain descent and speaking a language are not always connected. And also, being of a certain descent does not mean that you identify as being a part of the culture you are descent of.
So, I referred to having had this conversation before. Many of them have been in various places that I cannot easily link to, but could I please ask you to read through this before we continue this conversation? It always takes many hours of my life to explain these same things, and since much of what you are likely to say will already have been answered by me in the past, please save my time by reading the previous clones of this conversations, write down any questions that still remain unanswered after reading all of that text and ask those remaining questions after doing so!
So, here goes: https://piefed.europe.pub/post/130515#comment_1174389
You cant be that naive to think that US wont profit from the war between Ukraine and Russia by weakening their old cold war enemy. Why do you think proxy wars are being led, because of democracy?
How did the Russia taking over Crimea and Donbas weaken USA's old cold war enemy?
And what did USA do to convince the Russia it should invade Crimea?
we could discuss this for weeks, but there should be more background information or atleast basic knowledge of geostrategic tendencies. but here goes, Russia now has an opent front where she has to invest logistics and energy in, at the same time Nato, predominantly Us and Uk are, through Ukrainian army destroying Russia refineries, oil drills, sinking ships and destroying other weapons. If you dont see zhis as weaking your enemy, you are a troll or not enough informed. Furthermore, Us doesnt gove a shot about Ukraine, Crimea, Donbas, Kharkiv or Zelensky, as they didnt about EU in 2014.
I don't think it was possible guessing in 2008 or 2014 that the Russia would attack Ukraine in such a moronic way as it did. Of course the Russia has gotten weakened by this, and I believe the main reason Scholz and Biden were trying to minimize the military support to Ukraine was that they wanted the Russia to bleed.
But keep in mind: That is the motivation for decreasing Ukraine's support. The Russia started the war by itself. It would have been in the interests of the Russia to end it right in summer 2022 by withdrawing back behind its own borders. Maybe even just withdrawing back to where the front lines were in January 2022 could have sufficed back then, as people didn't yet understand how much the Russia wants to completely subjugate Ukraine. It was not understood that this is a war of genocide. But especially Scholz made sure that the Russia would stay in the game. I've been wondering why he did that, and I only have such unclear theories about that that it makes no sense to write them – they are likely to be incorrect. But still: We can still see that Putin believes an enemy can be made to give up by scaring it. Europeans are otherwise friendly but if they get scared, they start fighting back. Putin's junta thinks the other way around: They are friendly if they must, but if they can, they will be aggressive. Putin cannot understand why Ukrainians don't give up when the Russia shows that it's willing to torture and murder Ukrainian civilians, because under those same circumstances, Putin would give up. If Scholz had allowed right in, say, May 2022, Ukraine to shoot down the bridge between Ukraine and the Russia using the Taurus missiles, that would have been the end of the war. And the Russia would not have bled.
There is nothing more despicable than those central Europeans that have been advocating against helping Ukraine because they have wanted the Russia to bleed. And then there have been a large bunch of useful idiots who have done the bidding of the Russia-bleeders "in the name of peace", without understanding what their shouting is actually bringing us to... I'm not thinking very friendly thoughts about those useful idiots, either.
They wanted Russia to bleed by not supporting russias oponent? NAnd now they are bleeding the russians with ukraine blood. It's all fine untill it's your own children that are dying. Bombing of the bridge would mean Gemranys entry to the war. That was not their war and the poliplation of Germany doesn't want it. And dont start with the excuse of defending Europe from Russia imperialistic tendencies, there is no such thing. Otherwise the russians would start with much smaller and weaker countries not the bigest one there is. The point of the war is holding the land connection to the Crimea, the bigest russian port and the only one in the war waters.
Otherwise the russians would start with much smaller and weaker countries
You mean, like Georgia? Or Moldova? Yes, you are right. That's also what they did. And the Russia did not mean to begin a war with Ukraine. Putin had spent several billions into bribing Ukrainian officials. He had found a large amount of Ukrainians who were willing to inform him about the sentiments in Ukraine, and they unanimously told that Ukrainians either want to become part of the Russia or will be completely okay with that.
Putin had not recognized that since 2014, most Ukrainians were strongly against the Russia. And he had not understood that almost none of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine identified as Russian. Because most Russian-speakers for example in Estonia or Moldova do identify as Russians. (In Estonia this has lately somewhat changed, BTW. Possibly in Moldova as well, but I don't know that much about what's going on over there right now!)
The only people willing to give any information to him were those from a very small minority of Ukrainians that were indeed pro-Russian. I used to like the L'viv–Mariupol train because it was the only night train that arrived to Vinnytsia, where I lived, at a sensible time. Other trains arrived around 4 in the night, this one around 8. Much nicer that way! And there I did have conversations with people from Mariupol city, and I could find people who were indeed pro-Russian. But those were not many at all!
When Putin gave the order for the full-scale invasion, he knew that Ukrainians will not fight. He knew that almost all of the Ukrainian military leadership had been succesfully bribed. Because that's what all of his aides told him. That's what the most trusted people around him were telling him. He did not try invading a strong country. He started a military march into a large but extremely weak country that he knew would immediatelly fold.
But he was wrong, because he had built an extremely biased group of sources, and he had promoted exceptionally corrupt people into the Russian leadership. Almost none of those billions meant for bribery of Ukrainian military was actually used for bribery. It went almost exclusively into buying cool yachts for the people responsible for delivering the bribes.
this war?
or do you mean the transnistria war?
Both.
so the one that Georgia started and the civil war? :)
The one that the Russia started, and the other one the Russia started.
sure, reuters also lied
Or, more likely, misunderstood. Yes.