To the surprise of no one. Ukraine has always been corrupt, but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to Russia’s aggression.
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
78 points (91.5% liked)
World News
32048 readers
1160 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Goddamn, with the amount of negative coverage coming from Reuters, NYT, and other US/UK propaganda outfits, it really feels like the new military goal is to undermine support for the war, which means either the USA is scrambling to react to other events (Africa, China, Okinawa, India) or they want to further expand the red/blue divide in advance of the election.
Are you surprised? People in Washington are openly talking about how they should be focusing on China under the assumption that China will somehow make the decision to seize Taiwan tomorrow... As if they haven't been posturing about that literally since the end of the civil war and done nothing except increase trade, open up immigration, and increase cultural coupling with Taiwan.
The US needs an enemy to justify their extreme military budget and China is the bogeyman of the decade.
The weird thing is that the US is pretty much just sending old military equipment to Ukraine that the US has no use for. The aid provided is barely noticeable in the US military budget. If the US actually focused on this the war would be over in a month.
So far, the US has approved $113 billion in aid to Ukraine ($62 billion through the Pentagon and another $40 something billion through the State Department that definitely totally wasn't spent on war guys). It's something like a tenth of the US military budget and on par with the entire Russian military budget of around $100 billion.
I am a little surprised because it's not like they didn't know about China as their target back in '08. I'm wondering about why it's shifting now
Hong Kong.
They promised to leave it alone for 50 years, and they did not.
I mean, they did mostly leave it alone. The only real changes I'm aware of is they extended their national security apparatus to Hong Kong as part of one country two systems. Is that what you're referring to or am I missing something?
They took unilateral control of choosing which political candidates can run.
That's literally taking over the government.
That's like calling something a democracy when you can decide you're the only person who can run for your office.
Honestly? I wouldn't trust a thing written by the BBC on this topic. Britain occupied Hong Kong for how long? Thatcher wanted to keep it going. They made tons of changes to create unrest and separatist movements.
The bill was signed into law by the majority of the Hong Kong government. China didn't impose it in Hong Kong, Hong Kong adopted it.
The "widespread" condemnation came from the colonizers and dominators of China. Hardly a bunch for whom I give a shit about their opinions.
Lemmygrad.
you'd no doubt prefer stormfront. why not fuck off back to it?
...is rapidly becoming a byword for correct, yes
They pulled out of the Middle East and now need a new enemy to justify the defence budget.
Following the Second World War, they had the Soviet Union to blame and the War on Communism. Then it was the War on Terror. Now? Well... Now it's the War on China.
Nice, another braindead conspiracy take from Lemmygrad.
Lemmygrad isn't known to support Ukraine
No, they're a Kremlin propaganda factory.
Yes
And that guy happens to support Ukraine so calling out his lemmygrad account isn't really hitting the mark
After reading through some of their comments, no they don't support Ukraine. They're parroting Kremlin talking points.
The fuck's going on in that one then?
It's implying that this media is indicative of military strategy, to convince people that must be the way things are going. There still plenty of pro-Ukraine media though, and also it's has next to nothing to do with the military. It's trying to convince you that something is true by using it as an assumption to talk about something else.
this article is traitorous
/s? Right?
Edit: didn't look at the username. Classic blunder.
🤫