331
‘Dummies for Putin’: Democrats defend Zelenskyy after ‘shameful’ Trump meeting
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
331 points (99.1% liked)
politics
20474 readers
3812 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As if that’s not exactly how they planned it to go: look like they are willing to sign a deal, make it blow up with outrageous last minute amendments, and then pretend Zelenskyy is uncooperative.
Straight out of Putins playbook. It’s obvious he’s calling the shots in DC for the next 4 years.
If we're lucky.
Was Putin also calling the shots when Europe's deal required Ukraine sell off its ports and power grid?
Ukraine was always going to get stripped for parts, that's why the west invested billions in making it happen.
What scenario doesn't Ukraine get stripped for parts by some "empire" in your worldview? Because you obviously think that russia's invasion was the west's decision too. And Ukraine's decision not to roll over is also US imperialism or whatever.
They've been on this trajectory since 2014.
If that's how you see it, it's been in this trajectory since 1993, 2004, 2007, 2014, 2022. Russia would always come back to reclaim Ukraine, like they did Georgia, what do you suggest they should have done? What should Canada do if trump tries to annex it, rollover?
Putin wouldn't have been able to occupy the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine if he invaded out of the blue, there would be a massive insurgency, let alone justify the necessity of the invasion to the people he depends on to remain in power if there hadn't been a coup.
But yes, Putin would never have come to power and former USSR countries wouldn't have a problem with right-wing nationalists if we hadn't supported Yeltsin's coup and then intentionally immiserated the population during the 90s.
That's why Russia rolled for Kyiv?
Because they wanted to somehow protect the people in Eastern Ukraine, while they now bombard them non stop?
Protecting the people in eastern Ukraine was a justification they used, which they wouldn't have been able to use if the right-wing government the US propped up in kyiv hadn't passed discriminatory laws and failed to stop azov and friends from shelling them.
This has been debunked. The Donbas "rebellion" would have fizzled out without military support from the Kremlin (Igor Girkin himself admitted to this), Boris Nemtsov was assassinated for publishing a report on putin's proxy war in the Donbas. But after an surprise invasion and 3 years of debating with people like you, if you can't get the facts right, there is no point in debating anymore.
Man they are in force today. Reminds me of all the anti Biden Gaza bots. I am sure they are happy about Trump's casino going up soon. So much better than arranging a cease fire.
There is something I've been meaning to ask someone who lived it: was watching Yeltsin on TV as bad as watching trump? Was it the same brand of buffooning chaos and mindless dismantlement of institutions?
I never thought of that, next time I talk to a Russian I'll ask. I suspect was probably more like watching Newsmax given the role Russian media plays in maintaining power. There's probably an editorial explaining why Yeltsin getting drunk and falling in a river in DC was actually a diplomatic masterstroke.
In the 90s media were completely uncut though, especially their coverage of the first Chechen war. Some openly satyrized Yeltsin and he was kinda ok with it. Toying the line started with overtaking НТВ under Putin, the major divide between pro and anti-state stances and publications then happened around demonstrations in early 2010s, and in the end of the decade the latter started to be pushed out until ouright bans and suppression in 2022-.
There were, like, some guidelines, but when coffins of young boys started to arrive in droves and people protested against the war, print media was there to cover it, and this better-to-be-forgotten page of our history is now set in stone and I occasionally see publications from that period, no way to purge them all. Compare it to today, when mothers' union not against war, but for better treatment of their sons got quietly put down, and the existing media are just a surrogate tightly governed by statesmen.
On the initial question about Yeltsin vs Trump, it's hard for me to compare them for their context is inescapably different. Boris was, like, the first real elected pres, and a populist at that, and while Trump is tasked with just not fucking things too much, Yeltsin took a wheel in a harsh transitional period. And as two populists they share a lot of what makes their public image. But, call it naive and biased, Yeltsin sounded humble and honest when he talked about what he does, like he believed in it. It felt like he cared, but was a wrong person to be there from the very start, and drunk himself to death some eight years after passing the wheel to Putin being still influenced by that. With Don getting prezzed in after neolibs Obama then Biden and actually doing worse than if he did nothing at all, with empty waving like with the wall on the Mexican border, I perceive him significantly worse, more dishonest than Boris. Even knowing now that two were deeply pocketed by oligarchs (first time, eh?), I'm still find some sympathy towards our drunkie and find some personality and struggle within him, that I can't say I see in Trump.
Thank you for that perspective.was very insightful.