Hey, you'll be hearing from americas 🇺🇸 lawyers. This is copy right infringement. That is trade marked ip.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
183 points (87.0% liked)
Memes
47166 readers
1186 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
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 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
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.
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? America doesn't give a fuck if Sbovoda remains as long as the shock therapy has happened already, by then they'll take anyone who'll toe the line.
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.
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?
Why did they vote in the guy that said “For Ukraine, association with the European Union must become an important stimulus for forming a modern European state,” and that he was going to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement? That does not seem at all contradictory to me. His sudden U-turn on that was what got the Ukrainian people so pissed at him
I wasn’t there, and I’m not going to assume that one quote is representative of his entire history or even that entire political campaign. The electoral map shows that in general he was liked by the Russian-aligned electorate and disliked by the European-aligned electorate.
I wasn't there either, but I do know that on his inaugration he said "Ukraine's integration with the EU remains our strategic aim."
Are you saying that since he was more popular in the east, he must have been against EU integration?
When Yanukovych was couped, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea seceded. If they had wanted EU integration, why would they have taken such extreme measures, and why did they turn to Russia for support? Russia ran into virtually no problems in annexing and integrating Crimea, because most Crimeans were on board with it. And good thing, too, because their Donetsk and Luhansk neighbors subsequently suffered nine years of Banderite terror.
You're retreading the exact same ground that I already went over with Grapho in this same thread
You handwaved it away and deflected back to your State department bullet points and atrocity propaganda.
Fact: there was a US financed coup.
Fact: states have a right to secede under Ukrainian law by referendum, and they exercised that right when their sovereignty was violated
Fact: sovereign nations have a right to request aid from their allies. Donetsk and Lugansk exercised that right when Ukrainian Nazis refused to abide by the many ceasefires Russia helped to negotiate.
American spending on Ukraine in 2013
Good thing we're talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.
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. What's more: there's ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.
In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a "war against russian separatists" as an example of a successful psychological operation.
American spending on Ukraine in 2013
This is a consequence of the advertising market in Ukraine dropping in the first year of Russia's full-scale invasion
Congratulations on citing an article about what happened in 2022 to attempt to disprove my claim about what happened before 2014. Please learn to read dates. This is the third time in this thread that you have either gotten them completely wrong or actively misrepresented them.
It's one of many examples of US funding, many of which I've already cited in this very thread which you refuse to acknowledge (even to refute) unless you can find a fucking Phoenix Wright gotcha lmao.
It doesn't matter a single fucking bit why they would die without US funding, what matters is that they would, and thus they're entirely at the behest of their benefactors. It's also awfully convenient that you choose 2014 as a cutoff point for US involvement in Ukraine but you fail by that metric also. Regardless, Ukraine is thoroughly a puppet state of the US and its many crimes in the Donbas region are not a matter of debate. The ICJ has by and large rejected the atrocity propaganda lawfare of Ukraine and NATO and the probe has found evidence of genocidal intent in Donbas.
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.
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?
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".
Here's some more up-to-date info regarding a previous ICJ case against Russia, so we can weigh up how much these accusations might be based on fact. Spoiler alert: every accusation is a confession. I'll quote a relevant bit to your atrocity propaganda peddling:
The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of proving facts.’
And this one, regarding the reliability of testimonies presented by Ukraine.
The ICJ was also highly condemnatory of the quality of witnesses and witness evidence produced by Kiev to support these charges[...] Statements attesting to this were “collected many years after the relevant events” and “not supported by corroborating documentation”
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 (which it absolutely hasn't been), not just claims by notorious liars who said the same shit about Hamas without any evidence and no pushback from these very same publications.
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.
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
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.
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...
It's confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.
thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh... What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?