Ivan D

[Anonymous @YourAnonCentral]

82 years ago today, some of the bravest people in human history stormed the beaches of Normandy to confront absolute evil and back those who had been battling it street by street for nearly a decade.

Thanks to the Soviet Union, who's Russia originally shook hands with Hitler helping trigger the devastating world war, and to the 14 other soviet republics that fought bravely to undo that asinine mistake, those being Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and Estonia, whose 27 million dead and Operation Bagration sixteen days later made Normandy possible by tying down two-thirds of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. Belarus lost roughly a quarter of its population. Ukraine lost an estimated 7 million.

Thanks to the UK, which supplied most of the naval force, most of the air force, the planning, the airfields, and around 61,000 troops on Gold and Sword.

Thanks to Canada, whose 14,000 troops on Juno achieved nearly a total victory and the deepest penetration of any beach on the first day.

Thanks to Free France, whose 177 commandos of Philippe Kieffer's unit at Sword (the only French force to land on French soil on 6 June), the cruisers Georges Leygues and Montcalm shelling Omaha, and the destroyer La Combattante in the screen.

Thanks to Poland, whose navy (Błyskawica, Piorun, Dragon, Ślązak) covered the landings, whose pilots flew air cover (303 Squadron had the highest kill rate of any RAF unit in the Battle of Britain), and whose 1st Armoured Division under General Maczek closed the Falaise Pocket weeks later at Hill 262.

Thanks to Norway, the Netherlands, and Greece, whose navies sailed with the Royal Navy as government-in-exile forces in Operation Neptune.
Thanks to Czechoslovakia, whose 310, 312, and 313 Squadrons flew with the RAF.

Thanks to Belgium, whose pilots flew with the RAF and whose Piron Brigade landed in Normandy in early August.

Thanks to Newfoundland, then a separate dominion, whose artillery served in the Normandy campaign and whose sailors served across the Royal Navy.
Thanks to Australian, New Zealand, South African, and Indian airmen in RAF squadrons, and to the Royal Australian Navy ship that sailed with the bombardment force.

Thanks to Australian, New Zealand, South African, and Indian airmen in RAF squadrons.

And thanks to the United States, whose 73,000 troops landed at Utah and Omaha, and fought bravely despite a decade of isolationism (the Neutrality Acts of 1935 to 1939), an 'America First' movement whose figurehead Charles Lindbergh accepted a medal from Göring in 1938 and made openly antisemitic speeches, a Henry Ford who took the Grand Cross of the German Eagle the same year and whose antisemitic writings Hitler quoted in Mein Kampf, and US corporations (Ford, GM/Opel, IBM, Standard Oil, ITT, Chase) doing business with Nazi Germany, some of which kept operating well into the war and continue to do business with the tyrants of today.

[Lars Höcker🏳️‍🌈🇩🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇬🇱🇩🇰🇨🇦 🇹🇼🇬🇧 @PerviRave]

Hypothetical question:
If a President of the USA is a secret Russian asset, what would he do to help Russia?

ChatGPT:
Interesting thought experiment—and a useful way to think about incentives and power. If someone in that position were secretly acting in another country’s interest, the key wouldn’t be dramatic, obvious betrayals. It would be subtle, deniable, and cumulative.

First, they’d likely undermine alliances quietly. The United States’ biggest strategic advantage is its network—especially NATO. So instead of openly pulling out, they might question its value, delay commitments, create distrust among members, or signal unreliability. Even small cracks weaken collective defense.

Second, they could shift foreign policy in ways that benefit Russia without looking extreme. That might mean softening sanctions, slowing military aid to countries Russia opposes (like Ukraine), or reframing conflicts to reduce U.S. involvement. None of that needs to look like “helping Russia”—just “putting America first.”

Third, damage internal cohesion. A divided country is less effective abroad. Amplifying polarization, discrediting institutions (courts, elections, intelligence agencies), or constantly creating internal crises reduces the ability of the U.S. to act strategically. That’s something adversaries historically benefit from.

Fourth, reshape leadership and bureaucracy. Appointing people who are inexperienced, loyal over competent, or sympathetic to certain narratives can gradually shift how decisions are made. Over time, that changes policy outcomes without needing explicit orders.

Fifth, control the narrative. Public opinion matters in democracies. Repeating talking points that align with Russian interests—questioning support for allies, portraying adversaries of Russia as corrupt or unworthy—can steer public sentiment in a favorable direction.

Finally, they’d avoid anything blatantly illegal or provable. The whole strategy would depend on plausible deniability. If it’s obvious, it fails.

The big picture: influence at that level isn’t about one shocking act—it’s about slowly tilting the system so that, over time, outcomes consistently benefit the other side.

[Gianl1974 @Gianl1974]

LYING MAGA GOP

[Bill Madden @maddenifico]

Cover of The Economist. 😂🤣👇

[Garry Kasparov @Kasparov63]

Fascism doesn’t sneak up on you. It boasts in your face about war, attacking "internal enemies" and the free press, taking total power, and tells you that you must embrace it, not fight it. Consolidating and purging media into loyal hands is Putin's playbook.

[James Tate @JamesTate121]

Goes to show you how braindead the Republican creatures are!

[Morgan J. Freeman @mjfree]

This is a current picture of Tehran for you uneducated, never-served, warhawks licking your chops of bombing it.

It's not some low population desert. There are families, children, girls in schools, pets, regular working class people with dreams.

You're sick to want war.
You’re sick to want Trump.

[Glenn Tunes @glenn_tunes]

IM SO SICK AND TIRED OF HIS RIDICULOUS LIES 🙄🤦

[Brian Allen @allenanalysis]

As US troops deploy to the Middle East.

As gas prices spike.

As 92,000 jobs vanish in a single month.

As scores of children die in elementary schools.

As acid rain falls over Tehran.

As Switzerland breaks 200 years of neutrality to call it a war crime.

As Iran announces a new Supreme Leader.

As the Epstein files stay buried.

Donald Trump is playing golf.

At his own resort.

With his billionaire friends.

This is the man who said he’d lower your cost of living on day one.

[Annie @AnnieForTruth]

Dan Rather is correct and has been around long enough to know! How far America has fallen under one lying, corrupt, grifting narcissist and sociopath. 😢

[Irish Unity 🇮🇪🇵🇸 @IrishUnity]

“Working class people around the world have no innate desire to go to war with each other. They have to be conned into it by the sociopaths who will profit from it.”

- John Lennon

[𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒂 @itsDivasChoice]

Covert intervention worldwide…
Is America a real hero or a powerful villain???

[Jürgen Nauditt 🇩🇪🇺🇦 @jurgen_nauditt]

The attacks by the US and Israel are "reckless" and violate international law.

This statement was made by the Russian ambassador and scumbag at the United Nations, Nebenzia, at a UN Security Council meeting.

Russia has recklessly attacked Kostyantynivka with banned phosphorus, which destroys all living things, and dropped a FAB-1500 bomb on the city.

Russia has been violating international law in Ukraine for 1466 days.

To date, Russia has committed 217,000 documented war crimes in Ukraine.

Fuck russia.

[Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱🇬🇪🇲🇩 @acoyne]

I see lots of people on here confidently arguing that Carney's endorsement of the Trump administration's attack on Iran contradicts the position laid out in his Davos speech. I see lots of other people equally confidently asserting that it is wholly in line with the speech. The truth is it's both.

On the one hand, at times the speech argues for a consistent, principles-based foreign policy, in contrast to the hypocrisy that often characterized the old IRBO:
"We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim...
Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed ‘values-based realism’ — or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.
Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights...
We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together...
What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”? It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals...
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described..."

On the other hand, he also argues middle powers should be pragmatic:
"Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values. We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be."

How to square these? That's where the stick-together, don't-be-too-dependent part of the message comes in. The more that middle powers avoid great power domination, the more they can avoid having to make unpleasant moral compromises:
"Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation."

So is Carney's endorsement of Trump's war consistent with, or in contradiction of, his Davos speech? It's in contradiction with the part about "prohibition of use of force," applying same standards to allies and rivals, etc. But it's consistent, insofar as Canada has not yet "earned" the right to take a principled stand, by virtue of our current dependence.

The one thing I don't think you can call the speech is a simple argument for values-free "realism." That has not stopped various "realists" from making precisely that claim. Haven't these people done enough to discredit themselves already?

[The Muslim @TheMuslim786]

An artist created a picture of Donald Trump on paper by combining four pigs.

When the paper was opened, it said, "Where is the fifth pig?"

[VisionaryVoid @VisionaryVoid]

Charlie Chaplin was so determined to stand against Hitler and fascism in 1940 that he broke his long-held silence for the very first time to deliver this powerful monologue.

[Canada Hates Trump @AntiTrumpCanada]

😂😂😂😂😂😂
Greenland has 56,000 people and universal healthcare. But sure, send a Louisiana riverboat with a Red Cross sticker into the Arctic. Motherfucker has no health care plan at home but he’s launching Arctic medical missions now. Captain Bullshit, MD.

[Annie @AnnieForTruth]

George Conway is correct!
#ImpeachTrump
#25thAmendmentNow

[Morgan J. Freeman @mjfree]

We now know that Katie Johnson not only sued Donald Trump for raping her at 14 — and gave sworn testimony under the penalty of perjury — but that she was interviewed by the @FBI FOUR TIMES and her story was found to be credible.

Donald Trump raped children.