this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
157 points (98.2% liked)

politics

20340 readers
3985 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
157
Ukraine latest: Trump calls Zelensky a 'dictator' as he hits back at 'disinformation' criticism (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/politics
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Trump takes swipe at Zelensky's leadership

"Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a country left," US President Donald Trump says in a post on Truth Social.

Labelling Zelensky "a dictator", Trump writes: "I love Ukraine, but Zelensky has done a terrible job, his country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died."

Trump says in the meantime, the US is "successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia".

For context: Zelensky's presidential term expired last May, however Ukraine has been under martial law since the Russian invasion in February 2022, which means presidential elections are suspended.

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Placebonickname 73 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We’re getting something back from Defending Ukraine, we’re getting a solid, stable democracy in a former Eastern Block state, AND we’re getting less of the “Putin Dictatorship” to deal with. The billions we’ve spent on aid are WORTH THE COST if it means there is a 1 fewer dictator to content with.

We aren’t giving away money for an Ukraine today, we’re investing in a secure future for tomorrow.

[–] pennomi 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Hell, most of the aid we’ve sent is weapons specifically designed to kill Russians. They were mostly old weapons anyway.

[–] foggy 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"aid we've sent" this language doesn't explain to the brainwashed that this is money in our pockets.

When we "send 1 billion in aid", it usually means the US govt bought $1B of weapons from an American manufacturer and is delivering it to Ukraine.

That isn't $1B for Ukraine, it's $1B for us and $1B worth of guns for Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

By "in our pockets" yes, it might go to some Americans, but you're largely talking about taking it out of the taxes of all Americans and giving it to the 0.1%.

Those American weapons manufacturers and their inverstors are already beyond incredibly wealthy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It’s always something with yall isn’t it?

Lockheed Martin’s profit margin is something like 3%. The supply chain for the stuff they build Is the definition of “good factory job”

None of that 97% cost goes outside of the US

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're right. Lockheed Martin's CEO only makes a very reasonable $21,516,613 salary, 191 times their median salary. Your taxes hard at work.

[–] Sanctus 3 points 1 day ago

Too bad they have that picture of Zelensky with all the money on his desk so every time I say this they just point to that as a means of discrediting me. There is no reasoning here. We are post-consesus reality now.

[–] Placebonickname 8 points 1 day ago

In a sense, this is a cold-war era issue, so Cold War weapons probably will do just fine, with the exception of aircraft. I would send every aircraft we can to Ukraine cause 1) They’re expensive 2) We’re already paid for them, might as well see what they can do.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The right doesn't understand that money spent stabilizing things elsewhere ends up saving money locally. That includes actual aid to poor countries, like condoms going to a country with an AIDS epidemic!

[–] Nightwingdragon 32 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Zelinsky is in a really bad spot here. He's almost entirely dependent on US assistance to even fight the war, and has to defend himself from attacks from the person he directly relies on for that assistance without pissing him off and causing him to cut off aid because his fee-fees are hurt. Trump could cut US support at any time and there's nothing that Zelinsky could do about it.

That said, I'm actually surprised that Trump is still even pretending to support Ukraine, when it's been long established that his plan all along has been to hand Ukraine over to Russia on Russia's terms. There was an article I posted sometime back which was removed by the mods because the source was considered "questionable" and the article sounded like Russian propaganda, but it's mostly turning out to be true. The article said:

  • The plan doesn't take effect until Easter, allowing Russia to continue making land grabs until that point.
  • Ukraine cedes all Russia-occupied territory to Russia.
  • Ukraine cedes all Ukraine-occupied Russian territory back to Russia.
  • Ukraine cedes even more land to form a DMZ between Ukraine and Russia to be manned by Europe.
  • Ukraine is permanently banned from joining NATO
  • Neither NATO or US troops will serve as a deterrent to either prevent or respond to a Russian attack should Russia decide to attack again.
  • .

It couldn't have been more lopsided if it also added a clause saying Putin gets to fuck Zelinsky's wife. The Easter Deadline that Trump wants has already been confirmed, and Hegseth all but confirmed the rest of it. I'm sure that Trump is just hoping that Zelinsky will just roll over and go along with the plan, but Trump's position is pretty obvious: Either Zelinsky surrenders unconditionally or Trump is just going to hand the country over to Putin anyway.

[–] Eheran 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why do you think that he is almost entirely dependent on the POTUS? The EU is sending more aid, by the way.

[–] Nightwingdragon 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right, but there's two problems with that. One is that support for Ukraine isn't nearly as strong in some European countries, especially those countries who are more reliant on trade with Russia. The other is that the EU itself has traditionally under-funded its own military and relied on US support. This means that not only do they not have the resources to give, they can't give all that much without weakening what defense they do have. The EU simply can't support Ukraine at anywhere near US levels even if it wants to, and even with US support, Ukraine has been starting to lose ground. Ukraine cannot sustain the war without US support, regardless of how much support the EU is able to give.

[–] Eheran 9 points 1 day ago

So the EU supports them more... and you know that... but here we are, you tell us they CANT be anywhere near the USA....? Do I get that right? What am I missing?

Losing ground at absurdly slow pace where Russia would win the war in 200 years with 100 million dead. They run out of everything already, what are they supposed to fight with in a year?

[–] Treczoks 23 points 1 day ago

Of course he does. He does follow Putins commands by parroting Russian propaganda.

[–] MuskyMelon 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I never considered WWIII with the US and Russia on one-side and Europe on the other.

[–] partial_accumen 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think we'd have a civil war before that would happen.

[–] Manifish_Destiny 8 points 1 day ago

You're fucking right about that one.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Who says we can't have both?

[–] then_three_more 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

US and Russia on one side, US, Europe and Canada on the other.

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 1 day ago

As an American I will say, I stand on guard for thee.

[–] MuskyMelon 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Secession of the Pacific states first?

[–] partial_accumen 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The dream of Cascadia.

[–] MuskyMelon 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Always preferred Pacific States of America (PSA) over Cascadia

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

None of this seems to make sense. Also what does he mean when he puts his name in quotes and all caps?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

It means his brain is pudding.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Didn't know that about Zelensky (his term ended but he's still "in charge"). I have no idea how bad things really are over there but I would hope that even if the US was in the midst of a war we'd cobble together the will and resources to keep our democracy chugging along. Zelensky is actually following the law however -- Ukrainian elections are not to proceed under martial law.

The Trump administration is nothing if not lying and hypocritical. I'd say a war suspending the 2026 or 2028 elections is in the running for the "free space" on a bingo card.

Edit: context on Ukraine's constitution

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

They're in the middle of an invasion by an expansionist world power. How are they going to hold a free and fair election throughout the country?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Pot and kettle

[–] Theprogressivist 1 points 1 day ago

Trump: "no, u."