Apparently Newsom and Kamala Harris are currently polling the best to become the Democratic nominee in 2028. If you think Newsom is evil then okay, but I think he would be less evil than MAGA. Some people might hope for someone like AOC to be the nominee, but she seems to be polling worse.

Trump 2.0 is probably JD Vance. But I don’t accept the logic that a Newsom presidency would necessarily lead to Trump 2.0, a.k.a. Vance

Maybe people are wary of Russia because of Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine. And because of Russia’s poisonings of enemies (Alexei Navalny in 2020, Sergei Skripal in 2018, Alexander Litvinenko in 2006). And because of Russia’s many threats to nuke Europe (e.g. here).

The economic damage to Europe would be high if that were to happen. Also Europe wants to keep the US onside for defence cooperation.

In an ideal world, if Europe were all-powerful, I’m sure Europe would want to cut ties with the US as soon as possible.

I think this is the first time I’ve seen someone from Lemmy.ml admit something negative about China.

To me it seems that the US, China, and Russia are all behaving imperialistically, which is pretty worrying.

Maduro seemed like a dictator to me, but I don’t know if unilaterally removing him from Venezuela by force is the best option. Ideally Venezuelans would decide for themselves who they want their leader to be.

Communism is supposed to be a left-wing position right? But I’m saying I’m not sure I would see China as properly leftist given their behaviour. Wanting to take external territory potentially by force seems imperialist to me, and I would see imperialism as a right-wing behaviour.

the US actually has a lot of interest and dependency on Taiwan, meaning they would get militarily invovled immediately

Assuming Trump is rational. I’m not sure if he is.

As @[email protected] pointed out, polling shows that Taiwanese people mostly want the status quo (de facto independence of Taiwan from the PRC) or they lean towards formally declaring independence.

As for Taiwan claiming sovereignty over China, maybe that is still in their constitution, I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure modern Taiwanese leaders are not asserting this claim. Instead they seek to preserve the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent.

Okay, I looked at what the current President of Taiwan has to say. He says this:

Taiwan is already a sovereign, independent country called the Republic of China.

That’s not the same as the PRC.

This view might be controversial but here goes. If someone is suspected of a major crime (rape, serious assault, murder, major theft), maybe it’s okay for law enforcement to gain access to that person’s online accounts.

People might say “but if the government has the power to do that, one day they could do it to you, or they could use those powers to oppress anybody who criticises the government”. But isn’t that like saying “if you build prisons then one day an authoritarian government might put any critic of the government in those prisons”?

Related to your post: I’ve seen people from Lemmy.ml defend imperialist behaviour from Russia and China. Surely the left is supposed to oppose imperialism - whether it’s from the US, Europe, Russia, China, or anywhere else.

Actually it’s your post that doesn’t matter. If you actually read my posts, you’ll see that I originally was responding to this post:

Lol, I wonder when Ukrainians will connect the dots that they’re in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain.

I’m saying Ukraine’s current position is not “solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”. Two reasons for this:

1. Even if you think “western powers” haven’t fulfilled “their side of the bargain”, this wouldn’t be the sole reason for Ukraine’s position. Another probably more important reason is that Russia chose to invade Ukraine.
2. Arguably “western powers”, under the Budapest Memorandum, did fulfil “their side of the bargain”. The US and the UK (parties to the Budapest Memorandum) didn’t seem to commit to fighting a war if Ukraine came under attack. That being said, I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine at the moment.

Now do you understand it?

Edit: I was rude in this post originally but I’ve taken away some of the rudeness. To be honest, the post I’m responding to is incredibly rude. Clearly the person who wrote that DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE.

Sure, if Ukraine had kept their nukes and maintained them, they might not be in this current position.

But anyway, I was responding to the post that said “they’re [Ukraine] in this position solely because they put their faith into western powers that didn’t deliver on their side of the bargain”.

In my view that just isn’t true. Their current position is not “solely” because they put faith into western powers who haven’t delivered. Their current position is happening because the Kremlin decided to invade Ukraine. I absolutely hope that western powers do more to help Ukraine, but western powers didn’t make Russia invade Ukraine. It also seems to me that western powers probably have upheld “their side of the bargain” under the Budapest Memorandum, although like I say, I hope western powers do more to help Ukraine.

I’m talking about what was actually agreed to. To me it seems that Russia quite clearly abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t think you can say that the US and the UK did, unless you’re saying that those two countries didn’t do enough within the UN Security Council to back Ukraine.

Surely the primary country to blame for this situation is Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Western countries didn’t invade Ukraine.

I looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The main commitments seem to be a commitment to not use force against Ukraine, and a commitment to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”.

I absolutely hope that every country supports Ukraine and helps them at the moment. I’m just saying that it seems to me that Russia is the one who has abandoned its commitments within the Budapest Memorandum. I don’t know if you can say that the US and the UK have (Wikipedia says that France and China gave assurances in separate documents, not in the Budapest Memorandum). Although I absolutely hope that the US will take a more pro-Ukraine stance as soon as possible.

I just looked at the text of the Budapest Memorandum. The US, the UK, and Russia all agreed in that memorandum to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.

Russia is the country who broke that commitment, when they invaded Ukraine in 2014. I wouldn’t say that the US or the UK broke that commitment, because they haven’t used force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

There’s another commitment in there saying that the US, the UK, and Russia will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine… if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression”. It seems there were UNSC meetings - like this one - shortly after Russia sent troops into Crimea. If you think the US and UK didn’t do enough in this regard then fair enough, but I don’t their actions were as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

When did western powers promise that they would stop Putin invading Ukraine?

Ukraine is in their current position because Putin decided to invade Ukraine

Nice to see a reminder that the law doesn’t apply to you if you’re famous and influential

Interesting - Wiktionary says that the phrase was originally “heels over head”, which makes sense when conveying the sense of tumbling over. I guess that became corrupted, resulting in “head over heels”. Maybe I should start saying “heels over head” then.