5 ms·

Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported s

Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests. Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies. This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.

riehwvfbk 2y ago
Any sources for all this? Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision. The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  > Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before. Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it. What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    > Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
    - LPisGood 2y ago
      > Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. > But that's not the only thing getting sent. This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine: 1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
      - arandomusername 2y ago
        > Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight. > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
        2y ago
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory. Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify. There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions. But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.

riehwvfbk 2y ago

Any sources for all this? Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision. The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.

LPisGood 2y ago
> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before. Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it. What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  > Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    > Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. > But that's not the only thing getting sent. This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine: 1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      > Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight. > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
      - 2y ago
ants_everywhere 2y ago
> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory. Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify. There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions. But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.