You must log in or register to comment.
A prolonged incursion into Russia could escalate the conflict, drawing in other nations and potentially leading to a catastrophic global confrontation.
Bit of a joke to write this, isn’t it. The one country that is escalating things is Russia. They could have always moved back and have given up and this would all be over. Maybe Ukraine would leave the Russian territory if Russia leaves Ukrainian territory? Not sure that’s on the table.
Edit: coming back to all the reactions. Just wow, hilarious.
Edit2: haha, they even come back to monitor edits. Fun times.
They’re out there watching you 👀
It’s a .ml community. What did you expect?
Yeah I’m on the verge of blocking ml as well as hexbear, it’s insane the level of mental gymnastics that’s happening. Like what do they think Russia is going to do any less damage to the world than America if they get the chance?
do they think Russia is going to do any less damage to the world than America if they get the chance
Very probably, yes.
Around 20 years ago Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them. Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Since then Russia, rejected by the Global North, has had no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead of neocolonizers. Hence BRICS+ and the larger developing multipolar bloc that’s going its own way, ignoring the US’ “rules-based international order” sanctions, developing its own international balance of payments outside of US dollar hegemony, and working to get out from under the boot of the IMF’s & World Bank’s debt traps.
Why did the US reject Russia from joining NATO? Because the US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because then it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial “shock therapy” plundering of it, which started under Yeltsin and ended under Putin. That’s why the US has a special hate-on for Putin.
Compare what Russia has done in the last 80 years to the US:
- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
As for the US’ actions against post-Soviet Russia in particular:
The US has wanted to break up or otherwise weaken/isolate Russia ever since almost immediately after the break-up of the USSR. That’s why it’s been expanding NATO ever-closer to Russia despite originally having sworn up & down never to move one inch eastward. The US couldn’t allow a Ukrainian government to stand that was friendly with Russia. That’s why it couped Ukraine’s government in 2014.Not about that. They have some misguided notion that Russia stands for some imaginary form of communism that is the answer to everything.
And everything bad in the world is because of Capitalism. And also, everything west of Russia is “The west” and the entire “the west” is one entity.
That’s a shit strawman. Literally no one thinks that.
Unfortunately, I’ve had plenty of conversations here with people who think exactly this.
So yes, there are people who literally think this.
Show me a Lemmy conversation where someone thought that Russia stands for communism in any way. Only right-wing doofuses ever make such claims.
No, that’s just what you put in their mouths because you’re stupid and intransigent
Fuck Russia. Enjoy the incursion, Putin.
so brave!
deleted by creator
Russia’s current position is, that for ceasefire negotiations to start, Ukraine first has to demilitarize. In other words, no. There aren’t any ceasefire negotiations starting any time soon.
Removed by mod
Oh god, what have I done… 😱
yup, and the Kursk stunt put an end to that
Removed by mod
That’s such an incredible reaction to reading an article published in mainstream western media.
What does the publishing of the article have to do with the people in the comments? There’s no link.
People in the comments are discussing the article and its implications.
Removed by mod
🤨
looks like western sponsors of the war might have had enough of Zelensky
It is time for sober reflection. The Ukrainian people deserve leadership focused on practical, achievable objectives, not on grandstanding gestures. While courage and defiance are admirable, they must be tempered with strategic wisdom. The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses? War is more complicated than “just liberate the occupied territory”. And while it’s true that this counteroffensive has its risks. Everything they do or don’t do has its risks.
I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
What is Ukraine’s path to victory?
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I wish I had Russia’s economic hardships https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399
I’m sorry but Russia is 100% winning and has been for quite a while now
This is not a counter offensive, it’s a political stunt for the benefit of the smooth brained western public.
This article was written by ChatGPT3 and they didn’t even change the structure to hide it.
is there anything more liberal than avoiding engaging with the content of an article when criticizing
Bet he doesn’t trust ChatGPT to make calls on strategic errors.
I bet neither of you understand the difference between content and presentation. Using LLM to format the text doesn’t imply that the content is generated by the LLM as well.
Thank you for the insight about writing and AI. :)
Worse, the article was written by a Koch shill: https://www.macalester.edu/news/2022/04/professor-andrew-latham-receives-grant-koch-foundation-chinas-grand-strategy-a-history/
