The United States is unlikely to stop supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, regardless of the presidential election, Admiral Rob Bauer, Chair of the NATO Military Committee, said at a conference in Seoul, according to Bloomberg.

He also noted that Donald Trump made it clear in his debate with Kamala Harris that he wants the war to end. Furthermore, both the Democratic and Republican parties advocate for continued assistance, the admiral said.

"I think it’s unlikely in that light that the US as a country will stop supporting Ukraine," Bauer said.

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That kinda sounds like something someone would say if they were planning to stop supporting Ukraine after the election.

He also noted that Donald Trump made it clear in his debate

Donald Trump didn't make anything clear except his own mental decline. He was asked directly if he would continue to support Ukraine, and he said he wanted the war to end. That's as muddy as he can make it, and it still implies he will kneel before Putin.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

and it still implies he will kneel before Putin.

He needs to assume the position before he can truly show his respect.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This dude is living in denial. Trump will abandon Ukraine, NATO, and Taiwan. This guy will also be fired, and some dickbag sycophant will be put in his place to speed up the separation from NATO.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"It's unlikely Trump would try to please Putin"

[–] rah -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"It's unlikely Trump would try to please Putin"

Those words aren't present in the article.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/implication

[–] rah -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Can I suggest expressing what you're trying to communicate explicitly, using prose.

[+] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know how you can help them understand implications. Take them out on your boat, to the middle of the ocean.

"AHHHH!!! There's no one around for miles, and we're surrounded by open waters! What are they going to do? Say no?"

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

OK. That seems really dark.

[–] brunogron@feddit.nu 3 points 2 months ago

I haven't seen "it's always sunny in philadelphia", but I still got the reference...

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

It's not dark, you're misunderstanding me, bro.

[–] rah -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Since you don't understand what an implication is

I understand what an implication is.

I don't understand how you don't get it

I do get what you're trying to say.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Correction, you're now pretending as if you knew what an implication is the whole time, when you clearly didn't. If you had done, you wouldn't have written "those words don't appear on the text", as I was obviously writing down what the implication is, not directly quoting something. Ie, in other words, yes, it is unlikely that Trump will win, so in most cases, US won't stop supporting Ukraine, but on the off-chance that the diapered orange clown wins, he definitely would bend over for Putler.

[–] rah 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

you're now pretending as if you knew what an implication is the whole time

LOL

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

That's a mighty fine argument there, buddy.