To be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be its ally is fatal

US is fatal even for itself

"Buyer to collect"?

GODDAMMIT, MARY!!

history truly is a flat circle
- This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.
  If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn't count.
  
  That's the kicker, Leftists are correct far more often than liberals yet libs never put 2 and 2 together.
- How was Libya, a member of the non-aligned movement, a US ally? They literally were part of a group that took neither side in the Cold War.
  OBL was never an ally. The US gave money to the Pakistani ISI who gave money to fixers who gave money to OBL. There was no direct channel. He was never an ally and it is a weird assertion to make given the history.
  The other two were US allies. Noriega was even friendly with Bush 41. This is just bad history.

Isn't that exactly why Russia invaded to begin with, to steal minerals?
- Russia is a huge country has plenty of minerals and a low population. Trading people for more minerals isn't exactly in Russia's interest.
  
  These minerals threaten the Russian economy and their soft power over other European nations. If Germany can get their fuel supply from Ukraine rather than Russia that weakens Russia
- If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
  
  Russia hasn’t seized those materials yet and they still believe they can so the war will continue.
- One of the reasons, others include vengenance over Ukrainians throwing out his puppet from the government, insane conspiracy theories about Lenin creating the Ukrainian nation, etc.
- Unlikely. There are and where good economic and political reasons for the war.
  The blossoming democracy, freedom and wealth in Ukraine are dangerous to the stability of Russia. They show what could have been.
  The annexation of crimes did bring ports to further Russia's imperial ambition. The agricultural land is of high quality and will secure Russia's role as a resource exporter after the phase out of fossils. You also need to keep in mind that siberia's agricultural output is severely at risk from climate change. Ukraine had impressive heavy industry. They took transit tolls for Russian gas which could be saved.
  
  lmfao did you just say Ukraine was blossoming democracy 🤣
- No, Russia stated that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line, so their goal is to either prevent membership or demillitarize Ukraine entirely, and they have the means and will to continue until those objectives are met. That's really all it boils down to.
  
  This all starts when it becomes clear Ukraine has mineral rights that threaten Russia's ability to lean on Western Europe to the extent it does/did.
  The NATO claims are just cover. Even if they were true Russia has zero right to determine Ukraine's future.
  It's weird to see "leftists" endorse imperialism while attempting to claim any kind of morality.

Almost as if a preventable policy shift happened.
- you misspelled predictable there
- That would be a compelling argument (unpredictable policy shift) if it hadn't been predicted by socialists all over the world when the war started
- And as if half those pictured were never allies. For pete's sake Libya was in the non aligned movement from 1964 on.

Funny wojak faces but to clear up an apparent misconception here, Ukrainian weren't fighting for abstract concepts like "freedom" and Democracy", they were fighting to stop Russian soldiers from killing their families, raping their children, and burning their homes to the ground.
I hope this helps!
- Ukrainians were/are still fighting to defend themselves from an illegal invasion. But America sees and has always seen Ukraine as a proxy to weaken a geo-strategic rival. NATO was not realistically on the table as long as the conflict in the Donbas was ongoing (it would have immediately triggered art.5) to keep promising NATO instead of working on a more realistic path to peace has probably caused the death of 100000s of Ukrainians. And just as with many other imperial proxies in history, the proxy is left to deal with the fallout while the empire retreats to the metropol and prepares for the next conflict.
  
  Really spot on except America isn't exactly retreating, it's just now under the leadership of an administration that would prefer to have Russia as an ally.
  Instead of two imperialist powers fighting via proxy, they could just work together and strip smaller counties of their natural resources, side by side. Imperialism united.
- I think you'll find they were fighting other Ukrainians (if you can call the carpet bombing of civilians "fighting") to maintain the US financed Poroshenko in power long before Russia went in, about eight years in fact.
  
  umm actually history started on February 24th, 2022 ☝️🤓
  
  long before Russia went in
  There's a problem with this, because Russia has had troops in Ukraine since early 2014, before Poroshenko's government

If it was simple mob extortion it would be reasonable. Zelensky originally agreed when he thought the deal would be to pay for American protection.
But Trump wants the money AND wants Ukraine to surrender. Trump is a stupid mob boss who doesn't understand why "Pay me and I'll let the rival gang burn your business." isn't going to be accepted.
- Trump works for the rival gang though. He's just demanding the minerals so the dipshits will blame the USA instead of Russia. Putin gets what he wants to steal and he looks good in the eyes of the pro-authoritarian class traitors in this thread.
- It's confusing to him because he is a street level member of the rival gang.
- To me, we are back to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, except this time it's Ukraine instead of Poland and the US replace Nazi Germany...
  
  I am once again begging liberals to learn any history other than WW2. (And ideally actually learn about WW2 as well)
  
  In my humble opinion, this is nothing like the Molotov-Ribbentrop. Molotov-Ribbentrop gets a lot of bad advertising due to cold war propaganda, but even western leaders in the west at the time like Churchill admitted that the Soviets had no other option (if you want evidence I have plenty of reference, feel free to ask :)
  The Soviets spent the entire 30s warning of fascism and trying to build mutual defense agreements with France, England and Poland and they refused systematically, even when in 1939 the Soviets offered to send 1 million troops together with artillery, tanks and planes, to the Polish and French borders on exchange for a mutual defense agreement, but the French and English ambassadors received orders not to engage in actual negotiations and just to postpone the agreement, since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.
  Either way even if you fundamentally disagree with what I'm saying, what was the alternative? Poland was going to get steamrolled by the Nazis with or without the soviets controlling the eastern part of it (as proven by the fact that soviets started invading some weeks after the Nazis). What's more desirable, half of Poland having concentration camps, or the entirety of Poland having concentration camps?
  All of this could have been prevented in my opinion if western countries agreed to engage the Nazis together with the Soviet union, as the soviets suggested as an alternative to the Munich agreements. So the lesson in my view is: to fight fascism, listen to socialists (who are the ones who actually defeated most Nazis in the eastern front)

Hey, you'll be hearing from americas 🇺🇸 lawyers. This is copy right infringement. That is trade marked ip.

thanks for the weapons USA!
Wh... What do you mean they were loans instead of gifts?