The United States is pushing Ukraine further into a war that it cannot win. : worldnews

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Everyone here trying to suggest that the National Interest is a Russian propaganda mouthpiece...

Fucking laughable, maybe pick up a book before you comment on global affairs.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What a joke. If Russia could have successfully invaded Ukraine, they would have done it by now.

The fact is that Putin's invasion of Ukraine has already catastrophically failed and now Russia is caught deep in a quagmire of death and failure that will set the Russian society and economy back by decades more than it already was. I have no doubt that Russian autocrats and oligarchs will spend the foreseeable future diverting, deflecting, distracting and generally looking for every pathetic way they can to blame the United States for the situation that they find themselves in, but objective truth will always remain: Russia mistakenly invaded a country that they believed that they could take over using a combination of hard and soft power and now they are only beginning to pay the price.

Giving guns to our allies fighting for their freedom in Ukraine and watching the Russians throw their own people into a meat grinder for no reason other than for Putin to save face is some of the best military money that the US has ever spent. Dramatically worse even than the Americans wars in Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan, Putin is bleeding Russia dry of lives, money, equipment, brains and talent and so far they have absolutely nothing to show for it.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is likely an AI Russian propaganda article.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, National Interest, a famous Russian propaganda outlet. Get yourself checked from brain worms ASAP.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article makes exactly the same arguments, russian trolls are making. I don't know the publication, but this article for sure is not quality content that would bring any value. Its just regurgitation of Russian trolls.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's as if the arguments "Russian trolls" as you call them have been making are the actual reality, while you've been guzzling propaganda out of a fire hose. The fact that you still can't understand that Ukraine lost the war highlights just what an utter imbecile you really are.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This has been my perception all along. I don't really get how anybody thought Ukraine could win. In expressing this opinion, you're labeled as a Putin puppet. You don't have to be pro-Russia to say that they are winning.

I'm hopeful that the war comes to a close soon though.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Anybody capable of thinking about the situation objectively understood this from the start. As you say though, most people are unable to have a rational discussion on the subject because they're emotionally invested in the war.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, how refreshing to see someone coming out as a deranged putinversteher asshole from the start, without wasting my time.

Toodles!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I honestly feel like some trekkie should've pulled your card already 'cause you're giving them a very fashy name right now

[+] [email protected] -8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no idea what your are taking about, but we trekkies are against violent conquest, against violence itself. However defending ourselves and weaker peoples is a whole other matter. We are on the side of the oppressed and subjugated and are willing to stand up for them. I'm pretty sure they are satisfied with everything I have said.

You are free to comment on my opinions, please do , but attacking me personally, that doesn't come out as serious.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What you want is a "debate", and I'm not giving it to you. I don't take any settler who fixes their face to say "russian bot" without an iota of irony seriously, to be frank. Not one of you are worth the effort honest discourse takes as it currently stands. If you want the veneer of legitimacy, maybe try being legitimate first.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no idea what you just said. I don't know who settlers are, who "we" are supposed to be and what legitimacy you are looking for.

I'll just take a wild prediction that is better for me not knowing.

Have a nice day. Goodbye.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Oh wah they're not going to take me seriously when I say obviously Amerikan-brainrotted things like 'russian troll', 'orc', or 'putinversteher'(whatever the cracker fuck that is) and we've straight up locked up Black folk for the same kinds of accusations; I'm not even gonna try".

fuck on outta here if you can't handle your bullshit getting thrown back at you, you goddamn disgrace. you only stand for your cults of personality and your treats; and I hope I get to watch when the fury of the third world finally swallows you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

lmao bye troll

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your profile picture (at time of writing) is literally a Russian cosmonaut. Your bias is showing. (Pretty sure your profile banner is from Russian propaganda too, though I'm sure you'll correct me if that's untrue.)

But I suppose that does make you more overt and honest. Not necessarily right, but definitely honest.

(Unless you're an anti-Russian double-bluff. I can't profess to be an expert on the psychology of this sort of thing.)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for providing us with a great example of using ad hominem in lieu of having an actual argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you somehow closer to the truth, or are you, like the rest of us, getting news from various sources and making your own mind up?

Because if so, my ad hominem kind of applies to all of us internet forum idiots and armchair politicians. Those of us without obvious declarations in our profiles could be argued to be the stealth ones, trying to swing people this way and that with who knows what agenda.

Why do we reach the conclusions we do anyway? Do we stand to gain anything?

At least in your case, it seems more obvious why you do, wearing your colours on your sleeve (metaphorically speaking) as you do.

If you would like an inkling of why I think the way I do: I'm never in favour of it when a larger power goes in, guns blazing, to override a smaller one, like there's literally no other way. And they always, always go too far, refuse to back down, and a huge number of people die senselessly because some ideologue thinks that a lesson needs to be taught. (Curiously, the ideologues themselves tend to be a long, long way from the bullets.)

It's happened in history so many times. My own damn country has been the aggressor. It wasn't right then, and it's not right when it's done now.

Please note that you literally cannot tell which conflict I'm talking about here. There's at least three.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're arguing against the most prolific tankie superposters on Lemmy. He's one of the main voices of lemmygrad and that server and hexbears are virulent -what they call Marxist leninists- which is actually more akin to stalinist thought.

They support even modern day Russia, because it's not really about communism, but about destroying western hegemony. And they are very fond of autocratic leadership and will defend to a point of sounding silly the benefits of communist autocracies (while often living in western democratic countries).

They are quite open about being overt propagandists and regurgitate arguments from red sails, so they have a wall of links and arguments to make it seem like they have a point. It's very obnoxious to discuss with them as they are completely inflexible on their ideology.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I've seen their name before. I notice they haven't responded yet, so either they're not online right now or they're conjuring a really epic take-down of my point.

I was actually slightly afraid of coming back here to check because I didn't know what I'd find.

The other possibility is that I've made a point that can't be refuted within their ideology. After all "The West" as they see it is precisely the sort of big guy stomping the little guy that I clearly don't like. And I'm not sure I completely disagree with that point.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Our Focus: The National Interest is an award-winning online publication focusing on defense issues, national security, military affairs and hardware, foreign policy, and U.S. politics.

The National Interest was founded in 1985.

Transparency Statement:

The National Interest is owned and operated by the Center for the National Interest, founded in 1994 by U.S. President Richard M. Nixon.

You cant be serious lmao

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Country: USA

Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE

Media Type: Magazine

Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-interest/

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That review is for news articles. If you look at the URL, it very clearly includes "blog", so this is an opinion piece, which I take with the same amount of consideration as Letters To The Editor.
Richard Nixon? You can't expect us to trust anything associated with a ratfucker.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uh… yes. It’s an opinion piece. You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece, but I linked mediabias checker to show it’s not just some random blog with no credibility that would just post an “AI Russian propaganda article”

(Also quiz for the class: who founded the EPA lmao)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can disagree with the analysis from an opinion piece

That would require an actual analyses existing instead of just a strong opinion with no evidence.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did we read the same article? It’s not super deep analysis (what do you expect from libertarians) but he’s backing up his claims with actual reporting if you follow the hyper links.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If I follow the links then I get informed that those peace talks actually happenend and that's it.

I guess if I say that there is proof that the sun will explode tomorrow and then link an article showinging with pictures that the sun indeed exists, you will believe me, too?

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Did you read the title of this article? Brilliantly loaded with two Russian taking points : US being the reason for the war and that Ukraine cannot win and should not even fight. No one that cares about credibility would write that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh my god we’re not on reddit, read the article not the headline ffs

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

You know, it is possible to read an article and then comment on the title?

I know, mind blowing!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you really appreciate how we live in different worlds now.

I know the US provoked this war and I know that Ukraine can't win, and you know Russia attacked for no reason and that Ukraine is on the cusp of victory, and nothing we can possibly type at each other will ever change that. Reality is dead. Choose your own adventure!

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know for a fact you are wrong and I'm right and it's so easy to prove it. I'm the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes (and conspiracy theories) . That's the reality. Talking in absolutes is a dead giveaway. It means a big separation from reality.

I don't think Russia attacked for no reason and I don't think Ukrainian victory is certain. I think it's going to be a long and difficult conflict. What I do see is people reporting from the battles. Russian and Ukrainian and others. That's the reality.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know for a fact you are wrong and I’m right

followed by

I’m the one talking about possibilities, you are the one taking in absolutes

is 🤌

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cute, but what your are really doing is dodging.

Let me rephrase it, just for you: you are taking in absolutes. In no universe is that sensible, let alone when taking about wars, not to mention without even defining what victory or loss would be. This alone points that you have a flaw somewhere in your thinking. At least that, if not that you are completely indoctrinated in an illogical way of thinking.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

you are taking in absolutes. In no universe is that sensible,

🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌 🤌

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

Dodging more ;)

Let's just leave it here. Bye.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stoltenberg, the head of NATO said that the US push to expand NATO was the key reason for Russia's action - https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

Ukraine, on its own, cannot win. It is far too small. It can only win with US weapons, but it has far fewer soldiers than Russia. So if the US sends weapons, Ukrainian soldiers will die. The question is in what ratio? The evidence is that Ukraine is losing soldiers faster than Russia. So the weapons sent by the West are guaranteeing Ukrainians die in droves.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

Oh, I thought Russia just wanted to protect the Sudeten? That's what I usually hear :) Nato has nothing to do with it. I don't know what stoltenberg said and how it was taken out of context, but NATO is an organisation to which countries apply. Nobody is forcing them to join (except the threat of Russian invasion).

Ukraine is not that small and Ukraine would fight if it gets the weapons or not,because they are fighting for themselves. Likely less will die when they have something to fight with.

The actual evidence shows that Ukraine is losing far less people than Russia. One of the most evident proofs is the oryx report of lost hardware. It had it's flaws but I think it's very relevant. The leaked US report about two months ago has Ukraine at about 70k dead and Russia at 120k.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Your comment 10m after the post hit the new feed is likely an AI USA propaganda comment.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article is incredibly dumb. What's the alternative, they don't try to defend their country from being invaded? We've already seen all the genocidal actions Russia has done with the towns they've taken over, the mass graves and all that.

If needed, Ukraine will and should fight to the last person. Hopefully it doesn't come to that though. They need to be supported so it doesn't come to that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The alternative was to sign a peace agreement back in March last year before Ukraine lost all its territory. The fact that you think Ukraine fighting to the last person is preferable to Ukraine having declared neutrality and abandoned its NATO ambitions shows what an piece of human garbage you truly are. As Stoltenberg has now admitted, the war is happening because of NATO expansion

Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.

The west is cynically using Ukraine to fight a proxy war with Russia, and scum like you are facilitating this. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying because of deplorable human garbage such as yourself. If you want this war to keep going, why don't you go sign up for the foreign legion instead of cheering for other people to die you piece of shit.

World News

Rules: