• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s the second post on our /all/ page?

      You’ve all got to get used to the way federation works. Because everyone is federated with different instances the /all/ page is different for different instances. This means that when a thread reaches /all/ on a specific instance you will get a lot of their users showing up at the same time. This is true of all the large instances, lemm.ee and lemmy.ml pour into our threads all at once when they reach the top of their feeds, but it’s different for every site so you get this outcome where a lot happens all at once.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Interesting, I’m not seeing the hexbears… has my instance blocked them or has hexbear blocked me?

      It’s kinda a nothing of value lost kinda situation, just curious about why I’m not seeing them any more.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Libs and calling responding to a post that pops up on our feed “brigading”
      Libs and calling claims with citations and references “propaganda”

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine is being ungrateful repeating Kremlin propaganda or are the Hexbear users who are saying Ukraine has a point repeating Kremlin propaganda?

      Is Kremlin propaganda just ontologically what a Hexbear user says?

      • I’m referring to the concerning number of users from your instance who seem obsessed with parroting what has been confirmed to be Kremlin propaganda and lies spread through deliberate misinformation campaigns. Obviously, this isn’t all HexBear users, but you guys clearly have a general problem with this kind of stuff.

          • 𝔊𝔦𝔫𝔧𝔲𝔱𝔰𝔲@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do you seriously have to ask?

            This post wasn’t difficult to find.

            Acting as if ending the war is Ukraine’s responsibility, rather than one of the country engaging in a literal invasion.

            Anyone who doesn’t take the 2014 referendum with an extreme grain of salt is slotting nicely into Russia’s current playbook.

            I seriously don’t understand why so many of you dickride Russia, other than “west bad”. The current Russian government is antithetical to so many of the values you claim to champion.

            https://hexbear.net/comment/3865920

            Here’s another for the road.

            EDIT:

            Numerous comments people claiming that the Maidan Revolution was actually a US backed coup, with zero evidence provided outside of Kremlin and state operated mouthpieces of course.

            Possibly the most egregious yet: apparently the Bucha massacre was a hoax. Remember all those videos we saw of Russian soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians? Apparently they all must have been doctored, or were actually Ukrainian soldiers dressed up as Russian soldiers gunning down their own people.

            One of my close friends is a Ukrainian photographer/videographer who was among the first on the scene after the Russians left Bucha. You’ve very likely seen some of his photos before. I can only imagine the rage he’d feel if he were to read some of the bullshit that these comments are attempting to spread.

            Honestly, my opinion of HexBear has reached a new low after this thread. I used to be against defederation, but now I can at least understand why people don’t want to be associated at all with your instance.

            EDIT 2: This post was locally removed on HexBear. I think that says enough on its own.

            • spoiler

              I seriously don’t understand why so many of you dickride Russia

              love how liberals manage to weave in casual homophobia whenever geopolitics comes up, you people make me sick

              It’s not because of blind allegiance to Russia or anything like that, people have positions counter to your narrative as the result of actually paying attention to events, as they’ve unfolded, over years.

              Impressive how mad you babies get when people don’t swallow the lies you’re peddling, expecting them to be taken as implicitly true or something.

              • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Talk about swallowing lies after regurgitating Russian propaganda? You are all blinded yourself by your hate for the US that you are willing to deny massacres or genocides.

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s funny seeing the replies to your comment crying about “not brigading” but then the vast majority of the comments in this post come from hexbear users commenting tankie shit

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lack of self awareness = when something is on our /all/ page ???

          And why aren’t you responding to anything? So much for being a socialist, you have zero engagement with anything other than liberal beliefs and do absolutely nothing to defend your position or challenge yourself.

          • Lol, I’ve responded to plenty. Do you seriously expect me to respond to each of the 100+ comments that have been left by HexBear users? It’s not like any of you are capable of changing your mind about anything. Waste of time.

            • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes? What do you think challenging yourself is?

              Answer my points on your nationalist brainworms being completely at odds with any assessment of yourself as “socialist” at the very least.

              • Lol, chill TF out. I have much better things to do than spend hours arguing with weirdos on Lemmy.

                And again, all I have done is said that I support Ukraine. I also happen to be a socialist. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?

                • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And again, all I have done is said that I support Ukraine. I also happen to be a socialist. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around?

                  Because you don’t support the people, you support the bourgeois state and your position boils down to “I am willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to protect it.”

                  This is not socialist ideology. This is first and foremost nationalism, which variant of it I am as yet uncertain as you’ve said nothing about what your “socialism” entails. I am unable to assess whether you’re a nazi or a plain old liberal that pretends to be a socialist by saying you like welfare while still completely and totally supporting capitalism and liberal institutional design to maintain the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. The german gothic aesthetic you choose for your username certainly doesn’t help the suspicions I have over what you really are though, literally retvrn.

  • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s like every time there’s a war everybody forgets how fucking long they take. WW2 took six years. The Vietnam War took almost 20 years, same with the Afghanistan War. Anybody expecting anything solid within the next couple years is delusional. Ukraine is in it for the long haul.

  • thecodemonk@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The comment threads here are weird. Who, in their right mind, would ever support a country like Russia? It’s mind blowing.

    • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s bad for thousands of ukrainians to die in war they cannot win, which they do not want to fight, purely so NATO can accomplish some esoteric geopolitical goal, but that’s just me shrug-outta-hecks

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tankies claim to not be supporting Russia but only point out issues with Ukraine and believe every bit of info that comes out of Russia.

      • LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you’d want peace by Ukraine giving up its territory?

        How about peace talks that involve Russia giving back all Ukrainian lands (including Crimea) and pulling all troops out.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why stop there, how about demanding Russia provide every Ukrainian with a talking unicorn buddy?

          I live in reality and when I say I want peace it means I believe in negotiating based on realistic expectations.

          • LoopingRiver@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You mean the Russians that Russia settled there? Curious what you think about the Uighurs getting to break away a country from China.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They mean the people that live in the region. What kind of fucking shit nationalism is this? Are you a leftist or a nationalist?

            • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most of the people I’m talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don’t believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.

              By “the Uighers” I assume you’re talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It’s 90+% approval for China overall, I can’t find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn’t say it’s “okay,” but the blame isn’t just on their side.

              If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I’d like to condemn Russian escalation, but it’s a little hard for me to do so if I don’t have an answer to that question.

              • Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.

                Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

                If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?

                If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I’m always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.

                  Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it’s a fair point.

                  If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like “Come across the border and we’ll set you up with a Russian passport”.

                  Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could’ve be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.

          • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.

            Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a “counteroffensive.” Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don’t need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they’ve lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia’s demands before more lives are needlessly lost.

            Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.

            As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from ‘The Bad Country,’ they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they’re facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.

    • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Get out of your bubble. The majority of the world supports Russia. It’s an uncommon view in Europe/USA, but common everywhere else.

      Also, being anti NATO expansion doesn’t mean you support Russia. That is a reductive world view.

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There sure are a lot of Lemmy bro-gaders and NATO shillbots in this thread. That’s the only explanation for people disagreeing with me.
    smuglord

  • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what? I never thought I’d say this but I’m with Ukraine on this one.

    This whole counter offensive insanity is so militarily nonsensical that it had to have been mounted to please the West with a “win” so that they’d stay in the war. Real Chiang Kai Shek committing the best of the KMT army to Shanghai to impress the Westerners energy.

    The West is standing on the sidelines, supplying just enough equipment to keep the embers going and judging the ordinary Ukrainians going to their deaths by their hundreds.

    Fuck the clowns in charge in Kiev and fuck the Nazi militias obviously. But at this point the men being sent to the front are old men and boys dragged off the street against their will. Sending them to die to appease the West is fucking sick.

    • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US was clearly trying to manipulate Ukraine’s efforts from the moment they realized Kyiv wouldn’t be lost in a week. I’m always pleased to see them rebuked. Even better when they are manipulated by their own strings, instead of vice versa.

      (Although I’d rather see an end to the bloodshed, and the prevention of a prolonged quagmire that would see expendable workers thrown to the grinder for years to come.)

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This got an upvote?

      Are you open to proposing your master plan?

      Ukraine has been invaded. Are you suggesting they do not fight back?

      NATO is not war. No NATO country has been attacked. Engaging against Russia directly would put NATO at war with a nuclear power. I cannot imagine that this is your plan.

      Not just “the West”, but everybody is on the sidelines as far as direct engagement goes. Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can. Some to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Most have imposed crippling sanctions. So. “sidelines” is a bit misleading from that perspective.

      Even Russia’s allies are “on the sidelines”. You certainly do not see much overt support from China. They have even maintained ( in fact stepped-up ) diplomatic relation with Ukraine.

      Or are you trying to imply that the underlying cause of everything here is something other than Russia’s continued invasion? Everybody could truly go back to the sidelines if Russia just left.

      The only other path is for Ukraine to win. Are you supporting that or not?

          • Right, but it’s not like every country not filled out in green is actively supporting Russia in the same way. In terms of countries supplying Russia the way the US, NATO, and the EU are supplying Ukraine, I’m pretty sure it’s just Iran and North Korea. The US has largely failed to isolate Russia the way it wanted to, but Russia hasn’t been able to get the kind of support from its allies that Ukraine has (like, unless there have been some Chinese Type 99s tanks spotted in operation by the Russians that I hadn’t heard about, I’m not exactly tracking the front every day).

            • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              but Russia hasn’t been able to get the kind of [material] support from its allies that Ukraine has

              It hasn’t needed to. Ukraine wouldn’t be a functional state at all by this point were it not for the tens of billions of dollars in aid as well as all the military equipment slowly depleting the west. Russia on the other hand, has been doing quite well in holding it’s own economically despite the sanctions and in holding the literal defensive line against all the NATO weaponry. It’s a nonsensical comparison to make.

              • It hasn’t needed to

                They’ve taken arms and supplies from Iran and are currently negotiating with the DPRK. Yes, Russia is bigger and can theoretically out-last Ukraine in a war of attrition on a 1:1 basis, but you shouldn’t be hoping for something that prolongs the war.

                It’s a nonsensical comparison to make.

                So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia’s side.

                • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  but you shouldn’t be hoping for something that prolongs the war./

                  lol, what do you think I’m “hoping” for? Stating the fact that Russia can easily do what it has been doing indefinitely (but Ukraine cannot) has nothing to do with my hopes.

                  So is using a map of the countries supporting Ukraine to insinuate that the all the other countries must therefore be on Russia’s side.

                  No one ever did any such thing, just noted that support comes in many forms other than military equipment, which Russia has mostly already covered for itself, even if it buys drone parts from Iran. Unlike Ukraine which now relies wholly and entirely on outside help for all of its material need. You changed the goalposts for what “support” means to make it sound like only military equipment counts as support, which is foolish because it isn’t what Russia needs. You’re just trying to move the goalposts all over the place to make it seem like you have some kind of valid point, but you don’t. Even if countries are not sending unneeded tanks, Russia still has plenty of support all over the world, mostly from countries who rightly recognize this as a struggle against the imperialism of the US and NATO which is beneficial to any anti-imperialists (including any actual leftists, even though so many western “leftists” drink deeply of their overlord’s propaganda).

              • In what way? I think a lot of people are acting like anyone not actively sending arms or money to Ukraine must therefore be “supporting” Russia. Has the Saudi Arabian Kingdom given any weapons to Russia? Have they given any loans to plug the holes in the national budget while the country engages in open warfare? Or are they just viewing a European conflict as irrelevant to their own aims and goals?

      • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can.

        lmao here i am living in a 200 million people country where nobody gives a single fuck about ukraine

        even more political groups and discussions rarely involve ukraine except when lula decides to own zelensky in some way, no one here cares about nato’s proxy war

        • even more political groups and discussions rarely involve ukraine except when lula decides to own zelensky in some way, no one here cares about nato’s proxy war

          I mean why should they? Brazil as a country (you mention lula, so) isn’t in NATO so it doesn’t have an ideological reason to support Russia or Ukraine in the matter. There’s nothing to be gained geographically for Brazil either, since whoever controls Kyiv doesn’t directly impact any strategic concerns for Brazil afaik.

          You say no one cares, so while I think most people in Canada and US hope that Ukraine “wins”, does that mean apathy in that regard or would you say most people are passively hoping Russia achieves its war goals?

          • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            i think most people here are just apathetic towards it, yea

            as for smaller, more involved groups, you have the english-speaking libs and the middle class which are just nyt-brained to the core (on every single issue, so you can guess their opinions), and the communists and PT libs (with opinions that are pretty close to ours: “war is bad, putin is shit, and we should stay away from the whole thing, but hopefully the end result of this one is a weaker, and not a stronger, american/nato empire”)

      • rubpoll [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If your goal is to prevent deaths, surrendering would have been the ideal yeah.

        Zelenksy tried to surrender to prevent further deaths, and Boris Johnson refused to let that meeting happen because NATO isn’t finished using Ukranians as crash test dummies.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Zelenskyy tried to surrender and Boris Johnson stopped him?! Ooooookay… He maaaybe (all “unnamed” sources) expressed an opinion, which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

          To cast that as “Ukraine was stopped from surrendering” is just obscene … and yet another Kremlin talking point.

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            which the U.K. learnt the hard way, that you cannot negotiate with dictators. There can be no “peace in our time” with dictators hellbent on destruction.

            If the UK is convinced that you can’t negotiate with dictators, how does the UK keep entering into arms sales agreements with Saudi Arabia? Do the contracts just appear out of thin air at BAE?

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sigh.

              I am referencing to a dictator that is hellbent on invasion of other countries. We had plenty of relations with Russia before they decided to invade Ukraine and they were a dictatorship before. We have plenty of relationships with China now and they are a de facto dictatorship.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am referencing to a dictator that is hellbent on invasion of other countries

                Yemen isn’t a country because it isn’t white enough for you

              • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Saudis used their British weapons to bomb Yemen and create one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in recent memory. The UK sold weapons to Saudi before, during, and after the Saudi involvement in Yemen.

                Perhaps Russia should have merely bombed Ukraine to the point of starvation. Then they’d be a good dictatorship that the UK would be happy to carry out business negotiations with.

                • Adkml [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Don’t be ridiculous

                  Ukrainians are white

                  That’s only acceptable when it’s brown, asian, or south american people who’s country you’re destroying.

                • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What’s going on in Yemen is incredibly complicated. I’m not condoning everything Saudi Arabia is doing there, far from it, but to call it out as a good vs evil war is frankly a simpleton view. Saudi is bad there. Everyone is bad there. It’s a huge mess. But I think it’s important to recognise that the Saudis aim is to restore order in a neighbourhood country, to prevent Iranian influence from growing and to suppress violent Islamic fundamentalism.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Russia and Ukraine may have agreed on a tentative deal to end the war in April, according to a recent piece in Foreign Affairs.

            “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

            The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.

            Foreign Affairs is a Kremlin propaganda outlet now?

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia

                Hmm let’s look at the source on that: Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukranian language paper headquartered in Kyiv, owned by a Ukranian investment company also headquartered in Kyiv.

                Kremlin propaganda!

                • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sigh.

                  You do understand how propaganda works, right? It works by zooming in on molehills until they appear like mountains. So while I wouldn’t rule out that Johnson the Idiot said something unwise to Zelensky government, I also don’t automatically think that it means Zelenski was “forced to not give up”.

              • AOCapitulator [they/them]@hexbear.net
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And your sources for your beliefs are where?

                Or do only people you disagree with require sources, so that way you can keep gleefully believing whatever the fucking and spewing it everywhere you go

      • Calavera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you mean by not just the west?

        We have almost zero countries on Asia, Africa and Latin America which have sanctioned Russia or sent military aid to Ukraine

        This is just related to nato/Europe/global north countries.

        Europe is not the whole world

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukraine has plenty of opportunities to win. It could have chosen to chart a more balanced position between the EU and Russia. It could have given the Donbass some independence referenda and just let them go. It could have actually tried to adhere to the numerous Minsk Agreements to deescalate and prevent war. It could have negotiated for peace while the Russians were pulling back after its previously more successful counter offensives.

        But each time its leaders ignored the off ramp to peace and pursued delusional maximalist goals, egged on by promises of EU and NATO membership which even Zelensky acknowledged publically were just carrots dangled in front of Ukraine.

        Now there’s no pathway to any sort of Ukrainian victory and the most realistic scenarios all involve Ukraine permanently giving up Donbas and Crimea. The only difference between the likely outcome now and just giving them a referendum in 2014 is a couple hundred thousand Ukrainian graves.

        I’d respect the EU and NATO more if they had actually followed through with their promises to Ukraine instead of this Charlie Brown football bullshit.

  • puff [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty telling that the new line being fed to NATO worshippers is ‘don’t say anything critical about our objective failures’. This is, ironically, the same message Goebbels pushed when failures began to mount on the eastern front after Stalingrad and then Kursk. As the Soviet steamroller continued to Berlin, the line in the media was ‘it is unpatriotic to say we are losing’. And then they lost.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Somewhere in the Pentagon there surely must be a series of rooms isolated for this war. In them intelligence is gathered, counterparts in Ukraine can be in instant contact, resources from both armies are tracked, tactics are formulated, simulations are run. How do I know this? Because this would be too good of a learning opportunity to pass up.

    And those folks ain’t talking.

      • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US has had its weapons used in conflicts for years. Yes, they do what they’re supposed to do. Not much to learn, really.

        • Chapo_is_Red [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then why do you think they’re gathering intel? Surely the situation is very different in Ukraine. A weapon system is context dependent, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

          • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Intel is a tool which the US has high capability and it takes many forms. I am sure we share this intel with the Ukrainians

            • notceps [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who is this we? And why are you so sure? I’m not saying you are some guy working for the government I’m just saying you are making shit up and read too much of OSINT twitter so you feel ‘in the know’. You don’t know what intel is being gathered, if that intel even gets out or not. Like why should the US feel compelled to share with Ukraine? Because they are on the same side? From the few statements they seem more interested in using the war to pay off the MIC similar to Afghanistan and it doesn’t seem like any intel was gained over a 20 year period.

        • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          two sentences is hardly a rant and there are plenty of quotes from american officials and armchair generals about how this war is great because it’s degrading “our enemy” without costing american lives.

          • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent. In that there is no US blood is an added advantage. The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule. That’s something that’s happened for a millennium, including the American revolution.

            The US didn’t impose this war, 100,000 Russians invading did. As France helped the US during the revolution, the US helps Ukraine.

            • HornyOnMain [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              to reject tyrannical rule. That’s something that’s happened for a millennium, including the American revolution.

              https://readsettlers.org/ch2.html

              long extract from Settlers about the nature of the 1776 revolution

              We need to see the dialectical unity of democracy and oppression in developing settler Amerika. The winning of citizenship rights by poorer settlers or non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans is democratic in form. The enrollment of the white masses into new, mass instruments of repression-such as the formation of the infamous Slave Patrols in Virginia in 1727 — is obviously anti-democratic and reactionary. Yet these opposites in form are, in their essence, united as aspects of creating the new citizenry of Babylon. This is why our relationship to “democratic” struggles among the settlers has not been one of simple unity.

              This was fully proven in practice once again by the 1776 War of Independence, a war in which most of the Indian and Afrikan peoples opposed settler nationhood and the consolidation of Amerika. In fact, the majority of oppressed people gladly allied themselves to the British forces in hopes of crushing the settlers.

              This clash, between an Old European empire and the emerging Euro-Amerikan empire, was inevitable decades before actual fighting came. The decisive point came when British capitalism decided to clip the wings of the new Euro-Amerikan bourgeoisie — they restricted emigration, hampered industry and trade, and pursued a long-range plan to confine the settler population to a controllable strip of territory along the Atlantic seacoast. They proposed, for their own imperial needs, that the infant Amerika be permanently stunted. After all, the European conquest of just the Eastern shores of North America had already produced, by the time of Independence, a population almost one-third as large as that of England and Ireland. They feared that unchecked, the Colonial tail might someday wag the imperial dog (as indeed it has).

              Like Bacon’s Rebellion, the “liberty” that the Amerikan Revolutionists of the 1770’s fought for was in large part the freedom to conquer new Indian lands and profit from the commerce of the slave trade, without any restrictions or limitations. In other words, the bourgeois “freedom” to oppress and exploit others. The successful future of the settler capitalists demanded the scope of independent nationhood.

              But as the first flush of settler enthusiasm faded into the unhappy realization of how grim and bloody this war would be, the settler “sunshine soldiers” faded from the ranks to go home and stay home. Almost one-third of the Continental Army deserted at Valley Forge. So enlistment bribes were widely offered to get recruits. New York State offered new enlistments 400 acres each of Indian land. Virginia offered an enlistment bonus of an Afrikan slave (guaranteed to be not younger than age ten) and 100 acres of Indian land. In South Carolina, Gen. Sumter used a share-the-loot scheme, whereby each settler volunteer would get an Afrikan captured from Tory estates. Even these extraordinarily generous offers failed to spark any sacrificial enthusiasm among the settler masses. (14)

              It was Afrikans who greeted the war with great enthusiasm. But while the settler slavemasters sought “democracy” through wresting their nationhood away from England, their slaves sought liberation by overthrowing Amerika or escaping from it. Far from being either patriotic Amerikan subjects or passively enslaved neutrals, the Afrikan masses threw themselves daringly and passionately into the jaws of war on an unprecedented scale — that is, into their own war, against slave Amerika and for freedom.

              The British, short of troops and laborers, decided to use both the Indian nations and the Afrikan slaves to help bring down the settler rebels. This was nothing unique; the French had extensively used Indian military alliances and the British extensively used Afrikan slave recruits in their 1756-63 war over North America (called “The French & Indian War” in settler history books). But the Euro-Amerikan settlers, sitting on the dynamite of a restive, nationally oppressed Afrikan population, were terrified — and outraged.

              This was the final proof to many settlers of King George III’s evil tyranny. An English gentlewoman traveling in the Colonies wrote that popular settler indignation was so great that it stood to unite rebels and Tories again. (15) Tom Paine, in his revolutionary pamphlet Common Sense, raged against “…that barbarous and hellish power which hath stirred up Indians and Negroes to destroy us.” (16) But oppressed peoples saw this war as a wonderful contradiction to be exploited in the ranks of the European capitalists.

              Lord Dunmore was Royal Governor of Virginia in name, but ruler over so little that he had to reside aboard a British warship anchored offshore. Urgently needing reinforcements for his outnumbered command, on Nov. 5, 1775 he issued a proclamation that any slaves enlisting in his forces would be freed. Sir Henry Clinton, commander of British forces in North America, later issued an even broader offer:

              I do most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim Right over any Negroe, the property of a Rebel, who may claim refuge in any part of this Army; And I do promise to every Negroe who shall desert the Rebel Standard, full security to follow within these Lines, any Occupation which he shall think proper. (17)

              Could any horn have called more clearly? By the thousands upon thousands, Afrikans struggled to reach British lines. One historian of the Exodus has said: “The British move was countered by the Americans, who exercised closer vigilance over their slaves, removed the able-bodied to interior places far from the scene of the war, and threatened with dire punishment all who sought to join the enemy. To Negroes attempting to flee to the British the alternatives ‘Liberty or Death’ took on an almost literal meaning. Nevertheless, by land and sea they made their way to the British forces.” (18)

              The war was a disruption to Slave Amerika, a chaotic gap in the European capitalist ranks to be hit hard. Afrikans seized the time — not by the tens or hundreds, but by the many thousands. Amerika shook with the tremors of their movement. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were bitter about their personal losses: Thomas Jefferson lost many of his slaves; Virginia’s Governor Benjamin Harrison lost thirty of “my finest slaves”; William Lee lost sixty-five slaves, and said two of his neighbors “lost every slave they had in the world”; South Carolina’s Arthur Middleton lost fifty slaves. (19)

              Afrikans were writing their own “Declaration of Independence” by escaping. Many settler patriots tried to appeal to the British forces to exercise European solidarity and expel the Rebel slaves. George Washington had to denounce his own brother for bringing food to the British troops, in a vain effort to coax them into returning the Washington family slaves. (20) Yes, the settler patriots were definitely upset to see some real freedom get loosed upon the land.

              To this day no one really knows how many slaves freed themselves during the war. Georgia settlers were said to have lost over 10,000 slaves, while the number of Afrikan escaped prisoners in South Carolina and Virginia was thought to total well over 50,000. Many, in the disruption of war, passed themselves off as freemen and relocated in other territories, fled to British Florida and Canada, or took refuge in Maroon communities or with the Indian nations. It has been estimated that 100,000 Afrikan prisoners — some 20% of the slave population — freed themselves during the war.

            • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent.

              Which is why so many nations are smelling the blood in the water and casting off their western neocolonial overlords in Africa right now.

              Lmao.

              In that there is no US blood is an added advantage.

              hitler-detector

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I believe that degrading the army of one of the US greatest geopolitical world rivals at the cost of roughly 3% of the DoD budget is money well spent.

              They’re not gonna let you into the club just because you lick the boot leather. I believe the 100.000s of dead ukrainians are more important than some vague US geopolitical goal.

              The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule.

              The ukrainians are forcibly conscripted and banned from leaving their country. They do not want to fight.

              The US didn’t impose this war, 100,000 Russians invading did

              Yeah one day putler just woke up and felt like invading, that’s what happened.

              If you think this is such a good war, go volunteer.

              • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Ukrainians could stop this war anytime they want, as could Putin.

                Reality is the Russians invaded. They rejected world order.

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The Ukrainians could stop this war anytime they want

                  The Ukrainian government could, the same government that banned every political party that wasn’t sufficiently anti-Russia. And the last time the people got to vote, they elected Zelensky who ran as a peace candidate. So no, the people of Ukraine, the ones being drafted and sent to the front lines, have very little say over whether Ukraine negotiates for peace.

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The Ukrainians could stop this war anytime they want, as could Putin.

                  The ukrainians are being forcibly conscripted and banned from leaving the country. They do not want to fight. The russians have sought peace negotiations several times, NATO-members like the United Kingdom, have come and stopped these negotiations.

                  Reality is the Russians invaded. They rejected world order.

                  Ah yes, one day evil putler woke up and decided to invade, that’s what happened. He rejected our Good Guys Rules Based Order because he’s just such an evil dude.

            • Annakah69 [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Who gives a fuck about the money? Hundreds of thousands are dead, and we are close to nuclear annihilation.

              You are enthralled to a demon. Wake up and imagine you were marched to the frontlines.

            • TomBombadil [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Ukrainians are fighting this war for their own purpose, to reject tyrannical rule.

              Yes good thing their escaping tyrannical rule for totally wholesome democratic rule… That bans all opposition parties and bombs their own country for nearly a decade

            • Grimble [he/him,they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              farquaad-point Department of Naval Intelligence

              American revolution was a counterrevolution you dolt. Now go ahead, tell me I “support the British empire” bc you can only think exactly one step ahead.

        • bazovanyi@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fuck this tankie shit. I knew lemmy was made by tankies, I did not know that majority of people here are also russian shills

  • GivingEuropeASpook [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Did I read the same article as everyone else? I don’t get where “failed offensive” is coming from. It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine’s armed forces as far as I know.

    Since launching a much-vaunted counteroffensive using many billions of dollars of Western military equipment, Ukraine has recaptured more than a dozen villages but has yet to penetrate Russia’s main defences," … NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN that Ukrainian commanders deserved the benefit of the doubt. 'Ukrainians have exceeded expectations again and again," he said. “We need to trust them. We advise, we help, we support. But… it is the Ukrainians that have to make those decisions.”

    This doesn’t sound like a “failed” offensive to me. The “much-vaunted” part came from the West, not Ukraine. It sounds to me like western officials got themselves psyched up based on nothing and are now whining about it. So like, yeah, critics of the slow counteroffensive, shut up. You sound as ridiculous as the people who acted like Kyiv would be taken by March 2022.

    • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Respectfuly, it is painful to read shit like this from uninformed people.

      Here try googling this “Ukraine counter offensive goal crimea before:2023-07-01”(without quotes), just 3 random examples.

      Zelensky signaled Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia is underway. Here’s what to expect

      In terms of its goals, Kyiv has consistently said that it wants to recapture all of the territory controlled by Russia. In an address earlier this year Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that included Crimea.

      “It is not an intention, it is our land. Crimea is our sea and our mountains,” Zelensky said.

      Ukraine ‘ready’ to talk to Russia on Crimea if counteroffensive succeeds lol lmao

      Ukraine’s counteroffensive: Goals, opportunities, risks

      In September 2022, in his only programmatic paper so far, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Lieutenant General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi offered only a rough sketch of how a Ukrainian counteroffensive might look. In the paper, he spoke of “several resolute, ideally simultaneous counterattacks.” One strategically crucial target Zaluzhnyi mentioned was the Crimean peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. In Kyiv, all agree this is the main direction Ukraine should focus its efforts. But they are also expecting surprises and deceptive maneuvers. Many, however, doubt Ukraine has enough equipment and fighting power to regain the peninsula.

      Even western media tried to downplay it casting doubt from the beginning but the point I highlight is undeniably the planned goal was not achieved and it wont be achieved. Everyone would call that a failure.

      But even the fucking Nazis can’t agree on their own narrative and they’re just coping now

      Ukraine counteroffensive creeps ahead, measured in blood exactly 2 months ago, July 1st 2023

      Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the counteroffensive was “slower than desired”, without getting too specific. Ukraine says it has recaptured a cluster of villages in operations that liberated 130 square km (50 square miles) in the south, but this is a small percentage of the total territory held by Russia.

      Go tell Zelensky to shut the fuck up, oh wait.

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      billions of dollars of western equipment and they recaptured a dozen villages.

      The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want and have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

      • tomatopathe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukraine needs to get within artillery range of certain major logistical hubs to hamper Russian reinforcement and supply via the southern corridor. And it is close, now. The Russian administrators of Melitopol have already abandoned the place.

        With ATACMS, this would have been easier, fyi.

        Only people who don’t understand the situation repeat the sort of thing you are claiming.

        Furthermore, the US aid to Ukraine was mostly stuff that was destined to be decommissioned. The “billions of dollars” is on paper, not in fact. Nothing Ukraine is receiving from the USA is current gen or in use by the US and therefore isn’t diminishing the US armed forces. Arguably it’s actually increasing US strength, since the USA is now ramping up artillery shell production.

        From a strategic standpoint, destroying the Russian military (estimated around 50% of Russia’s MBTs and Airforce) in exchange for stuff you weren’t going to use anyway is a bargain.

      • The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want

        This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia’s military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and “reasonable” war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it’s “allowable” in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn’t before.

        …have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

        I don’t mean to deride your analysis, but I also do wonder how much analysis some random Hexbear user can really make. I mean, I can look at maps of assessed control from the ISW and I hear about what goes down in some of the more nationalist Russian telegram channels but I deliberately try to avoid anything that makes me sound knowledgeable in military strategy and tactics.

        I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine’s approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it’s got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn’t be criticized.

        • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia’s military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and “reasonable” war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it’s “allowable” in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn’t before

          This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

          I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine’s approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it’s got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn’t be criticized.

          Even the Ukrainians are talking in that article about how hard it is to breach the Russian defences. The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages. It is ridiculous to assume the side with less soldiers, lacking air superiority, and ran by the most corrupt nation in Europe with vast amounts of support being resold by Ukrainian generals has any chance of defeating the larger power. Early in the war Ukraine had an advantage as it’s soldiers had in violation of the Minsk treaty been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

    • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given the substantial losses of men and equipment and the meagre gains I do think it is safe to assume that the counteroffensive does not go as well as Kiev has hoped for.

      • Totally – but I think in the west, people were conditioned to expect breakneck speeds similar to the initial invasion and push towards Kyiv by Russian forces or the rapid advance last year of Ukrainian troops that pushed out Russians from Kyiv suburbs and northeastern Ukraine.

        In my mind, a “failure” would mean that they gained nothing – not even a few small villages.

        • mihor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          3 months for getting past the screening line while losing majority of your combat capability is… well… abysmal.

          • while losing majority of your combat capability

            We’re watching this conflict unfold from a million miles away, how could you possibly know that they’ve lost most of their combat capability? That wasn’t mentioned in the article. If the article is paywalled for you, I was able to read it entirely with Firefx’s easy-read button.

            • mihor@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You should check out Telegram and Youtube, you have numerous videos and photos of destroyed Ukrainian armor, drone strikes on radars and artillery, while analysts count everything. The brigades were already at most 50% of capacity before the offensive, but many have been rendered combat ineffective since, meaning there are too many casualties to be able to continue operations, so the reserve brigades (many of which were meant to exploit the breakthrough if it succeeded) have been rotated in already. In short, Ukraine broke its teeth on the screening line so now they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the front. After the offensive stalls for good and the Rasputitsa begins, Russia will most likely begin its own offensive, which will be disastrous for Ukraine.

              • You should check out Telegram and Youtube, you have numerous videos and photos of destroyed Ukrainian armor, drone strikes on radars and artillery, while analysts count everything.

                I used to in the first few months of the invasion, but I decided I’d only try to keep up with any significant developments (like if a city changes hands or something new happens, like a particularly brazen drone strike) for the sake of my own mental health.

                The brigades were already at most 50% of capacity before the offensive,

                Which YouTube sources were saying this?

                • mihor@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Check History Legends, and I believe Weeb Union has been reporting it as well.

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why you should not defederate hexbear. Good, clean, comment. Just block the troublemakers (it’s about 60 of them) and the threads automatically look more cogent.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Complete nothingburger. What military capability do the Baltic states bring? Isolated geographical position, small countries with small armies and small economies.

              So it’s not a factor in the first place. But even if it was, Ukraine handily outranks Poland when it comes to providing capability. They have an extensive (largely state-owned btw) arms industry, very capable engineers, and, in case you haven’t noticed, fighting spirit.

              Last but not least they’re punching above their weight in Eurovision. Oh wait that was EU accession, not NATO.

              • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Isolated geographical position, small countries with small armies and small economies.

                worse than that what they bring to an alliance is pretty much no extra money or anything else but also a significantly higher chance of getting into a war

                frankly I’m of the opinions that everything east of Germany is a pretty cheeky imposition on Russias traditional standing in Europe. You can’t just break all the old rules for operating in Europe and not expect consequences

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Traditional standing, yes, as colonial empire. It may be cheeky but why would it be bad standing up against that?

                  You know what Russia could have done to prevent NATO expansion? Not invade Moldova, not invade Georgia, and deal with Chechnya in a manner that doesn’t smell of genocide. Make sure that Eastern Europe doesn’t feel threatened so that they don’t feel the need to join NATO. Of course the Baltics, Poland, etc, joined, they don’t want to repeat the experience of being a Russian colony.

                  And just for the record no I’m not actually a fan of NATO, or better put the US being part of the whole shebang. Only positive thing about that is that without Europe in the mix the yanks would likely be even worse.

            • geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression, or other states also of course. Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military. Which makes them less of a threat to NATO

  • WuTang@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an european taxpayer who see Ukrainian in Jaguar and Audi Q7 driving aroung in my country, I would say to these pain in the ass to shut up! Never seen such an arrogant people, they are in a conflict, getting free supply of everything and they complain!

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haters gonna hate. Still though, they’ll need to be cordial if some of these critics are also paying Ukrainian bills. Being rude is the fast track to falling out of favor with foriegn taxpayers.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a coincidence, “shut up” is what I tell people who can’t stop talking about Ukraine and Russia.