This article is not a reasonable take on the situation. It is saying America isn’t a “reliable partner”. What does that mean? Demanding that NATO countries pay their fair share instead of free loading, is now not being a reliable partner? If anything it’s the other way around, considering the US has funded Europe’s defense. America is still the best partner for Europe and it makes more sense for the two to rely on each other than to waste resources while China - an actual dangerous dictatorship - continues to rise.
It’s also odd to paint Trump as “dictatorial” given that European leaders constantly look for ways to control or punish free speech, or for ways to suppress election results they don’t like. Look at the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the actions taken after it, or the proposal to ban AfD in Germany, or the effort to reverse the Romanian election. It’s EU leadership that has become authoritarian.
Negotiate with russia about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Calling a elected president of country a dictator and spread false claims of 4% approval.
Bringing in a UN resolution that lacks the part where Russia is the aggressor in the war with Russia.
Blackmailing a country that fights for survival to get rare earths.
And for free speech, the US don’t have free speech. People are silenced by fear by „free-speech“ abolitionists so they don’t dare to speak freely in fear of repressive measures.
That’s law of the jungle not free speech.
And the AfD is full of enemies of the constitution and that’s illegal as a party in Germany.
Nobody prohibits to be such an enemy of the state but you can’t expect to get paid by germany tax payers for trying to destroy that state. That his neither authoritarian nor anti-free-speech.
> And for free speech, the US don’t have free speech. People are silenced by fear by „free-speech“ abolitionists so they don’t dare to speak freely in fear of repressive measures.
The US is basically the only country with good free speech laws. I am not saying they’re perfect, but I’m not sure what your argument on that point is. Can you share something more specific and explain how it invalidates the American constitutional protections on free speech?
> And the AfD is full of enemies of the constitution and that’s illegal as a party in Germany.
You either have a democracy where people can choose their leaders or you don’t. It appears Germany doesn’t. Preventing a party that is popular, from existing or participating in elections, is literally authoritarian and anti free speech by definition.
> Bringing in a UN resolution that lacks the part where Russia is the aggressor in the war with Russia.
What do you call the illegal coup in 2014? It removed the representation of everyone in Crimea and Donbas right? What about NATO expansionism? The aggressor isn’t very clear. I would argue that the 2014 coup and efforts to suppress Russian ethnic people in Ukraine was an act of aggression that eventually led to this conflict.
> Blackmailing a country that fights for survival to get rare earths.
This framing just shows how thankless it can be for America to help Europe. Asking for something fair in return for hundreds of billions in defense and security funding (not just in this conflict but for a much longer time), especially since it helps remove China’s rare earth control, is reasonable. It’s not blackmail to propose a fair deal. Ukraine and Europe are also certainly free to refuse the deal and not expect American taxpayers (whose pocket this comes out of) to help them further, considering they’ve already done so much.
> What do you call the illegal coup in 2014? It removed the representation of everyone in Crimea and Donbas right? What about NATO expansionism? The aggressor isn’t very clear. I would argue that the 2014 coup and efforts to suppress Russian ethnic people in Ukraine was an act of aggression that eventually led to this conflict.
If you dont know what youre talking about please dont bring up ridiculous bits of propaganda.
The only illegal coups in Ukraine were in Crimea where unmarked Russian soldiers surronded the regional parliament made them appoint a random criminal from a minor party as the leader and hold an undemocratic "referendum" to join russia. No free speech was allowed by many ukranians (of russian, ukranian, tatar, and other ethncities) who opposed the russian coup.
Russian backed criminals and neonazis and scam artists backed by russian soldiers also commited coups in parts of Donbas. Sadly they were unable to vote in elections or speak freely and were basically under control of corrupt warlords in the following years. The rest of Ukraine including most of the Donbas held several fair free elections. In the last presidential election which was fair and free Zelenskyy crushed the incumbent including getting a super majority in the part of Donbas which was still able to particapate in free elections.
Russia could care less about the rights of "ethnic russians". Its killed thousands of them in their assualt on Ukraine (probably a dispraportionate share of civilans they have killed considering where most of the fighting has occured).
There was no effort to "supress" ethnically russian Ukranians. They are a well integrated part of Ukranian society, the commander in chief of the army is an ethnic russian born in Russia who onpy moved to Ukraine in his teens. Also I'm guessing youre under the mistaken impression that most of the Donbas area was ethnically russian when it was actually only about 1/3.
As for NATO expansionism thats another bit of propaganda. There was never an agreement to not include parts of eastern europe in nato(former soviet leader Gorbachov hinself admitted this in interviews with russian media), countries like Poland begged to be let in and wore down existing nato members. Most imporantly Ukraine was not seeking to join nato in 2013/2014 before russia invaded and everyone knew there was no chance of them getting in in 2014 when russia started the war or 2022 when they expanded it(too many members of nato were opposed). Now after the expansion of the war it seems inevitable.
America has done a lot but Ukranian victory and a russian loss is clearly in Americas best intrest.
> The US is basically the only country with good free speech laws.
You know how online comments can be used to silence people?
Imagine we had a heated argument and I end with „I know where you live“
Depending on the circumstances at some people at that point feel threatened and stop using their free speech.
Or think about the people who get fired for online comments.
You could say, free speech doesn’t mean free if consequences but that means it’s not free speech, but without consequences you could threat other people and stop their freedom of speech.
Every freedom stops where the freedom of others begin, that’s why no freedom can be unlimited.
> You either have a democracy where people can choose their leaders or you don’t.
Sorry that’s BS. Every democracy has rules for those who want to vote and want to get voted. Something like stripping convicted of their voting rights forever is impossible in Germany. You can even vote in prison. And given that taxpayers pay for the parties expenses and that they get free airtime in TV for their ads the are certain rules you have to comply to be a allowed party. So comply with the constitution is one main point.
>It’s not blackmail to propose a fair deal.
Pay or we cut of your military‘s communications via StarLink is not a proposal of a fair deal. Without communication people will die.
Pay or die is definitely blackmail.
> What do you call the illegal coup in 2014? It removed the representation of everyone in Crimea and Donbas right? What about NATO expansionism?
Because former soviet states joined NATO russia had to attack and kill Ukrainian civilians? Really?
And don’t forget that people in Donbass voted for Zelenskyy.
By that livic Russia could attack the US and shouldn’t be labeled the aggressor. I doubt that Trump would do that but maybe he would offer some US states to make a deal to get peace.
It’s also odd to paint Trump as “dictatorial” given that European leaders constantly look for ways to control or punish free speech, or for ways to suppress election results they don’t like. Look at the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the actions taken after it, or the proposal to ban AfD in Germany, or the effort to reverse the Romanian election. It’s EU leadership that has become authoritarian.