69
Defense Stocks Fall as Trump Pushes Ukraine Peace Deal
(www.msn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
69 points (98.6% liked)
World News
39904 readers
563 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
No, but it gives a good place to start. The west has absolutely hollowed out and looted Ukraine, and used it as a battering ram to damage Russia as much as they could. The US blew up Nordstream specifically to try to decouple western Europe from cheap Russian gas. The US Empire, post-2014 Euromaidan coup, uses Ukraine similarly to how they use Israel, to secure its interests in the region.
... and I'm sure you have sources for those accusations, right?
Yes, which part are you skeptical of? I think these are pretty clear at this point, though. Most of this is from comrade @yogthos@lemmy.ml
So, there were these points you mentioned:
The first two links are about US officials discussing who they'd like to see active in a Ukrainian government and who they don't. Doesn't relate to any of your points. Maybe the last, but simply discussing which people are currently doing what in another country during a state of turmoil doesn't really say anything.
The counterpunch link is just weird... It's just a long list of weird accusations and propaganda without any substance at all. Looking at the site, it's not a neutral news source anyway, but that, too, doesn't give any sources concerning any of your points beyond "look, western politicians visited Ukraine". Well, no shit.
The Consortium News article starts with brandishing the opposition as a Neo-Nazi movement and disqualifies itself utterly by that within the first few sentences. Like, those are your sources? That's insane.
The Monthly Review Online article is about the Maidan massacre. Not directly related to the points above.
Maidan coup thread: deals with the question "Is there any credible evidence that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was due to a CIA coup". Even if the answer to this was "yes", it wouldn't be relevant to any of the points above.
Coup details: same. Like, it keeps going on how the US influenced actors. Well, no shit. That's what politicians do. I still don't see the connection to the allegations stated above and the way it's framed in the article is despicable.
"Don't get it wrong": "The EU doesn’t care about Ukrainian lives — in 2014, they supported a far-right coup", nah, I'm out. "Far right coup", what bullshit. This whole myth of Nazis taking over Ukraine is just ridiculous and any article that keeps iterating that Russian propaganda is not believable.
advocating inflicting a military defeat on Russia in Ukraine... Helping Ukraine defend itself against an invading agressor because it serves your interest as well doesn't make your second point true. Russia could stop the war today if they simply stopped attacking another country. They don't. It's not the west that uses Ukraine, it's Ukraine that uses the west's interest to reduce Russian power to defend itself. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Washington, via CIA paramilitaries, has been fighting a proxy war - bullshit. The article is about US people training Ukrainian people, not about the CIA fighting a war. Helping Ukraine defend itself doesn't mean you're "using it". If you're teaching somebody some self defense to no longer get beaten up by a bully, you're not fighting a proxy fistfight. What a stupid take.
NYT coup coverage with CIA involvement - same.
Nordstream US involvement evidence - long, long article that ends up accusing Ukrainian nationalists. No US involvement mentioned.
The US harvesting Ukraine for minerals - and here it is, the one part that I agree with you and that I think is believable. And of all the points up there, this only partly backs up the last one, because "getting resources" isn't really "securing its interest in the region" (or one might argue it's even the opposite, considering historic precedence such as Versailles, but I guess Trump doesn't think that far ahead). Yeah, that sucks. But still, there is no indication of the US or any other western state being the cause here - it's just Trump, the Russian asset of all the people, trying to take advantage of a situation.
I gave a variety of sources, because you were incredibly vague. One thing you do repeatedly in this comment, though, is immediately dismiss any source that agrees with the reality that Ukraine is governed by a far-right nationalist group that upholds Stepan Bandera. This truth is so counter to your understanding that you feel it a claim capable of being dismissed without any evidence from your part. Regardless of how well-sourced and backed up this is, from whatever source, even the pro-Ukraine New York Times, you still deny it.
If I give you hard evidence, and you dismiss it purely because it disagrees with your ideology, what's the point in me giving you evidence? Genuinely. Your only argument against Ukraine being governed by far-right nationalists is that Russia also believes this, which is racism at worst and utterly confused logic at best.
As for the reason why I showed western involvement in setting up the current government of Ukraine, it's because it's quite clear that that was the reason for the Euromaidan Coup. The west set up a group of far-right nationalists, for the ends of securing their economic interests in the region. This includes encircling Russia, cutting off supply of cheap Russian gas, and drawing out an unpopular war to try to economically weaken Russia as much as possible.
You further add your own conspiracy theory, that the most Statesian president ever doing the most Statesian things, is somehow a Russian asset. You provide no evidence for this either, just like you provided no evidence to counter mine, yet just leave it hanging as though stating it is evidence.
I implore you to move beyond sheer knee-jerk reaction, and actually pay attention to the points being brought up. No news source is ever neutral, and a source not being neutral does not mean it is wrong.
I implore you to move out of your echo chamber and actually pay attention to the points being obvious to anybody not being tied exclusively to propaganda pages. Some news sources aren't just for delusional tankies and a source not being exclusively Russian astroturfing crap does not mean it's wrong.
It’s virtually impossible to be in an “echo chamber” when living in a Five Eyes country. Or rather, it’s virtually impossible to not be stuck in the Five Eyes liberal echo chamber. You would have to go full Kaczynski, living in a shack in the woods.
As if we weren’t—and aren’t still—exposed to exactly the same life-long indoctrination, education, and propaganda as everyone else in the imperial core. But somehow we, who looked beyond the cultural hegemony in which we’re surrounded, are the ones living in a bubble.
This is just vague mockery, it isn't a point. I've only been able to come to the conclusions I have because I don't live in an echo chamber, and seek sources not just from the west but also the east and other global south perspectives. Communists aren't delusional, no matter how much you may think we are.
This is not about being a communist or not. You made statements, I asked for sources and all you could provide was a list of articles that were mostly unrelated to the far reaching points you made and even if they weren't consisted mostly of unsubstantiated leftist ramblings. I never said you were delusional, but if you can't provide meaningful sources for your far reaching claims then you can't expect me to go beyond illustrating how you act because there's nothing else to discuss.
I did find meaningful sources, you just stuck your head in the sand as soon as it said something counter to what you believe. What am I supposed to do in that case?
You didn't find meaningful sources. And I certainly didn't stick my head anywhere. I read the articles. The point still stands that most of them had absolutely nothing to do with your points except their general bias. You're supposed to give meaningful sources that are relevant to the points you stated earlier. Come on, it's not hard. Except if there's nothing to back up your claims, or course.
I did find meaningful sources, you rejected them because what they said goes against your understanding. It's a thought-terminating ideological backflip.
Lmao your ass was not expecting sources