this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
169 points (100.0% liked)

World News

50310 readers
2142 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fittedsyllabi@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I thought Trump was dead. Guess he's not anymore

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

Still waiting for the terminal phase of Putin's cancer...

[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I have said it before and I will say it again.

It is not in the interest of the US that this war finishes. A stalemate guarantees continued weapons sales much longer that peace.

Currently the US is getting

  1. raised income via defence and energy contracts (incl. Oil & Gas) &
  2. prolonged economic disadvantage to a competitor nation via sanctions.
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It is not in the interest of the US that this war finishes.

It's important to dstinguish the interest of the US from the interest of Donald Trump and his traitorous junta.

It is not in Trump's interest that the war ends without a Russian victory, since Trump is a Russian stooge who was put in office by Putin to deliver the victory that Russia has not been able to achieve by force of arms. Trump doesn't want to be seen to be backstabbing Ukraine, so instead he has resorted to lip service not backed with any concrete measures that might change the balance of power in the conflict.

raised income via defence and energy contracts (incl. Oil & Gas)

US arms sales attributable to the Ukrainian conflict are relatively small part of the US's entire defense market (which is vastly bloated and which has been used over several decades to achieve military Keynesianism).

A strong demand for oil and gas benefits Russia proportionately far more than it does the US, since fossil fuel exports are a far larger percentage of Russian export earnings. What else do they make that anyone wants? Vodka and caviar? Spyware-riddled antiviros software?

prolonged economic disadvantage to a competitor nation via sanctions

The only reason the sanctions are damaging to Russia is that Russia continues its aggression towards Ukraine and threats towards the non-Russian-vassal states in Europe. And the US is far from the only nation sanctioning Russia. And "competitor" in what, exactly?

[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

since Trump is a Russian stooge who was put in office by Putin to deliver the victory

I am unsure. Logic tells me Trump has had enough opportunities to completely shit on Ukraine and has not taken them. His position is IMHO unclear.

strong demand for oil and gas benefits Russia proportionately far more than it does the US...

I disagree. Income for gas exports has not risen LINK whereas US exports continue to do so LINK

And "competitor" in what, exactly?

Geopolitical influence overall (e.g. in the Middle East, Asia, Central Europe)

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Excellent comments.

Logic tells me Trump has had enough opportunities to completely shit on Ukraine and has not taken them. His position is IMHO unclear.

He's balancing serving Putin and staying alive. There are factions within the US military and security state that are unlikely to tolerate a complete sell-out. Though I'd argue that the gross act of extortion what was minerals deal was an example of completely shitting on Ukraine, as was the arrogant and insulting behavior shown to Zelenskyy by Trump and Vance.

strong demand for oil and gas benefits Russia proportionately far more than it does the US…

I disagree. Income for gas exports has not risen LINK whereas US exports continue to do so

But that's not quite what I said (perhaps because I didn't say it all that clearly). Russia needs fossil-fuel export earnings much more than the US does, and because of Russia's costs of production and shipping, its break-even point requires a higher market price than low-cost producers such as Saudi Arabia. But with Ukraine attacking pipelines and refineries, and with resources within the economy being commandeered to service immediate military needs, Russia's ability to supply fossil fuels is constrained right now (that's what one of your links is showing), and most of the European countries that used to buy from Russia have reduced their consumption in order to limit the scope of future blackmail.

Geopolitical influence overall (e.g. in the Middle East, Asia, Central Europe)

Influence is helpful. So what are the strategic objectives being served by that influence?

[–] probable_possum@leminal.space 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The proxy war in Ukraine strengthens China, India, North korea. China gets the chance to ramp up its military production capacity even more while Russia pays for it. North Korea gains military know-how... submarines, rockets, drones. India gets cheap gas.
Ok, Syria's regime collapsed, but the country isn't stable at all.

Europe is forced to arm itself or so they say. The result is a diminishing influence of the US on Europe. The broken promise to protect Ukraine if they give up their nukes reduces the trust in the US. The US diplomacy doesn't look exactly coherent - Russia has not much reason to take the US seriously atm.

Russia's autocracy is stabilized by the war. Its war against Ukraine didn't hurt Russia too much, it even gained something. A message to other countries with ambitions to try it themselves. Canada, Greenland and Taiwan are on the menu I heard.

And: Resources are wasted. Environment and climate are damaged. People die.

Not sure if the advantages outweigh the negative aspects or if it is more about domestic political opportunism and cleptocracy/ personal gain. Inexperiencie and shortsightedness too, maybe.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The US diplomacy doesn’t look exactly coherent - Russia has not much reason to take the US seriously atm.

Russia controls Trump. He has never done anything that has worked against Russia, and never will.

[–] probable_possum@leminal.space 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Trump

Controlling, steering, influencing - who knows. He is still hoping for a Trump Tower at the Red Square or something like that.

The problem is that the ministers of the department of state and the department of defense aren't up to their task either. I mean Hegseth?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This isn't the behavior of someone steered, or influenced. It's the behavior of someone who is owned.

[–] probable_possum@leminal.space 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

He sells weapons to Ukraine and strongly urges the other NATO members to increase their military budget. How can this be explained?