this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
585 points (95.5% liked)

politics

20615 readers
3855 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Secretary of State Marco Rubio grew visibly frustrated during an ABC News interview when questioned about the Trump administration’s approach to Russia.

Defending Trump’s push for peace talks with Putin, Rubio insisted negotiations were necessary but admitted the administration didn’t know Russia’s demands.

He clashed with host George Stephanopoulos over Trump’s refusal to call Putin a dictator and the U.S. siding with Russia in a recent UN vote.

Rubio also compared Trump’s handling of Ukraine to Biden’s approach to Israel, further escalating tensions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Russian federal subjects would semi-autonomously be their own countries. Falling under supervision of the UN and neighbouring countries

But that is on the US and China agreeing to it when currently both are against that

It does give China potentially direct control over some resources they would want but they already can get those without weakening their position

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I can see why this would be a good outcome for Europe.

It essentially turns Russia into a puppet state. If we were to eliminate China and the US, that would make Russia Europe's puppet state. While it has some obvious advantages to Europe, it's clearly not in the interest of either Putin or Russia (the most pessimistic estimates put his approval rating at over 60% among Russians).

Since it's obviously not to their advantage they won't agree to it. That means someone would have to force them to accept that new status quo. The US just dropped all support and China has made it pretty clear that they're not going to participate in any operation like that either.

So that leaves the EU. I'll circle back to my earlier question. Do you think the EU is ready to adopt and ratify a constitution if it came up again? Absent that, do you think the EU can put together a military coalition that's big enough and permanent enough to induce an immediate surrender by Russia? If not, do you think that the EU is willing and able to wage a protracted direct war against Russia?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

It can’t be supervised by it’s neighbours if the two biggest neighbours aren’t apart of it

If the US and China abandon Ukraine WW3 will happen so to pretend there’s a safe way out of it is unreasonable

The US will look to Canada

Russia will look to Germany

China will look to Taiwan