The US won the physical war but lost the soft war to Russia.
The US is being couped, and we need to dethrone them before it’s too late.
In what way did the US win the physical war? Russia is still occupying a lot of the disputed territory.
LoL. That upvote count. You bots can’t even feign organic.
the amount of Fascist, Jingoistic shitposting that favors either Republican or Russian propaganda on social media is STAGGERING. The people arguing for it are more concerned about bathroom gender signs, DEI, wokism, and a bunch of other made up stuff, and not only are they oblivious that their country is being taken over by a foreign aggressor, THEY ARE PROUD OF IT. Because “at least the Russians kill the gays”
We are in this position we are today, because Russia has been waging an information war against NATO countries for 15-20 years. and the seeds they planted during the days of Georgia and Crimea, are blooming into fruit now.
The free world is AT WAR with Russia, and for the time being, America has been conquered. Victory from the jaws of Defeat, for the Russian mafia
Trump is definitely aligned with Russia, but that’s very far from being conquered.
They dont need to invade to conquer. They already control the president. he just ended aid to Ukraine. He literally will not say anything bad about Russia. he is bought, paid for, and owned.
America is currentley, and indefinetely, an enemy of the free world.
Trump’s support in Congress and the court is worrisome
Reminder: Russia violated all of these uninformed.
Also, why is this posted here? This is not a meme.
Everyday life is a meme now
Removed by mod
Nice pasta.
Do you think they know that you need two line breaks to make a paragraph? Or is it just hard to find the enter key on a Cyrillic keyboard?
Pff yeah, maybe. But this is just laziness, though; I’ve seen this exact block of text shared around on Reddit a few years ago, so this is literally just copy-pasta. OP just didn’t bother cleaning up the text at all.
So honestly, I don’t think it was posted with the intention to be read. Rather, this is just making a lot of noise… Uh… Grifting, if you will.
Fuck lemmy for leaking politics to every possible community and not removing it on user reports. What a cesspool of a platform.
As i just said in another comment: imagine the backlash if someone were to post something similar with putin face. People are being accused of being russian trolls for the slightest unaligned critic of ukraine government. I’m not questioning it but this post is what propaganda actually looks like
It’s probably because Putin invaded a sovereign nation. People tend to look down on things like that.
Judging by your other comments, I suppose you get your “news” on fox news…?
How is your comment related to what i just said?
What is there to negotiate? If all the russians leave ukraine, ukranians will probably stop shooting them…
Russia has always firmly opposed expansion of NATO, including the missiles and NATO troops that were lined up at their border with Ukraine’s participation.
I’ve always plainly stated that if anyone comes within 2 metres of me, I’m going to stab them. What do you mean, I’m going to prison??!! You knew my rule. I’ve been telling everyone my rule for 20 years.
Do you think that NATO was planning to invade Russia? And if not, then WTF is Putin’s problem?
“The United States should invade a country that might in the future join an alliance to help prevent the US from invading other countries as we have in the past.” Do you realize how fucking stupid your nAtO eXpAnSiOn propaganda sounds!?
I’m literally just plainly stating historical events.
…that just so happen to line up with the propaganda of the Russian invaders.
Facts don’t stop being facts when a Russian says them. If they’re factually stating the sequence of events, it doesn’t change anything.
Lies don’t become true just because you keep saying “facts”. The Russian propaganda (that you’re parroting) is the untrue part, not the events themselves. Ukraine defending itself against Russia before and during their violent, illegal invasion is not an “expansion” and has nothing to do with NATO. Full stop.
I would go one further. Ukraine trying to join NATO is not a valid reason for an invasion. In fact, I can’t think of any valid reason for an invasion. Invading a country is wrong.
Maybe Ukraine wants to join NATO because they share a border with a gigantic country that wants to conquer them.
Except Ukraine was on their border and not part of NATO and other countries on their border are. NATO Then Russia invaded and took the Crimean peninsula unprovoked. Not a surprise that Ukraine wants NATO membership, and now Finland joined NATO because of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, doubling the NATO/Russia border.
Incorrect. The Crimea invasion followed a soft coup of Ukraine by the US, wherein they installed a far-right puppet regime. The following years, Ukraine allowed a torrent of NATO & US troops and missile deployments to be installed at their border with Russia.
Where did you come up with this? At no time has the US or NATO had troops or missiles in Ukraine. Get your facts correct or say nothing.
“At no time,” when they’re there as we speak. So stupid.
Nope… you’re spreading bullshit. People got rid of a Putin puppet. Hope we do the same.
All those countries that joined NATO, Their sovereignty doesn’t end where hurt russian fee-fees begin
if Russia doesnt like it, then maybe they should reflect on how they acted like savage barbarians to those people throughout history. Maybe they should reflect that they aren’t entiteld to an “Empire” or a “Sphere of Influence” or whatever they want to call it. Reflect on the fact that Eastern and Central europe are not pawns and slaves to a larger power. but nations with agency, hopes, dreams and goals.
but they wont, Imperialism, Warmongering, and Genocide are married to the current excuse of “Russian Culture”
If it was about their sovereignty, it’s weird that you don’t mind NATO attacking their sovereignty to install pro-western politicians through corruption or straight up coups. “Sovereignty” only seems to matter when it’s anti-Russian.
It’s not about feelings. There were many agreements for NATO not to expand. They did it anyway. There are consequences for that.
Please educate me. Which countries had pro-western politicians “Installed”
And if you’re already typing Ukraine, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
With maybe the exception of Serbia, Russia has been antagonistic and Imperialistic towards Europe for CENTURIES. Theres a reason Russia finds itself fighting against most/all of Europe every century. You need only ask the butchered populations of Eastern Europe who found themselves as Russian subjects at any point in history. The only reason they were ever friendly with Serbia, was because the Serbs are like a microchasm of the same thing the Russians did. Mini-mes, if you will.
you want to scream America bad, NATO bad, fine. but remove both of them from the equation, it wouldnt change the fact that the continent distrusts Russia for a reason.
Ukraine, Georgia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
Oh boy
So if they installed pro-western politicians in Ukraine, Why was the president of Ukraine at the time of Euromaidan checks notes Viktor Yanukovitch? the Pro-Russian fraudster who was once removed from the presidency after having cheated in the elections. and even afterward, managed to ratfuck his way into a term later on in 2010. Only to get Impeached and removed from power By his own government after he ordered the Berkut and Internal Troops to use lethal force against protestors.
this tired argument of western coups against these ex soviet countries always forgets to address the fact that a couple of suspicious phonecalls in embassies doesn’t hold the same power as millions of people taking to the streets over a government doing something that is widely unpopular.
if the CIA and all these other groups people accuse of toppling governments were as competent as fiction made them out to be, Joe Biden would still be President, Putin would be dead, Russia would be a balkanized state, and the Ukraine war would probably never have happened, and if it did, it would have been over by now with a Ukrainian victory.
No, you’re describing the Maidan Coup, which was backed by the US to install a far-right puppet regime because they opposed Yanukovitch maintaining neutrality with Russia, and not bowing to US demands to block a lease on a Crimean naval base.
NATO hasn’t “expanded” in a long time, until recently when Sweden and Finland decided to join. A decision that was made based on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So through Russia’s actions, two countries have decided to join an organisation that was made to opposed Russia.
Before that, no new members were accepted into NATO, even if they wanted to join, because NATO members weren’t really seeing the point of NATO anymore, and they didn’t see a reason to provoke Russia. That changed in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, and annexed Crimea.
Last but not least; NATO doesn’t expand. It’s not a nation with borders that grow through conquest or subjugation. It is a defensive pact that the peolpe of a nation must vote on to join. And then the members of NATO must unanimously vote on letting the new country join. It is voluntary and democratic.
So instead of shoutong “NATO IS EXPANDING, GRRR!!”, why not ask yourself “why would Russia’s neighbouring countries want to join NATO?”
Completely untrue. NATO has been expanding since the 90’s.
Of course it has. Of course it has. I mean, if your dillusions help you find your happy place, who am I to judge, right?
Fact check me.
NATO wouldn’t need to expand if Russia wasn’t constantly threatening their neighbors.
They’ve only ever threatened their neighbors during NATO expansion efforts.
Russia was threatening their neighbors before NATO even existed.
NATO existed before Russia, genius. It’s an anti-Soviet org.
The Soviet Union was still Russia. They’ve not changed their attitude since then.
They’ve only ever threatened their neighbors during NATO expansion efforts.
This is abuser logic. “If you would quit misbehaving, then I wouldn’t have to hit you!”
I see you haven’t spoken to many people from Finland… Or Latvia… Or Syria… Or Chechnya… Or Ukrainians, for that matter.
You wanna name anymore western imperialist projects?
“Everyone who’s afraid of Russia (for good reason) is a western imperialist project”
Ukraine had a ceasefire agreement 7 days after the invasion. The US & UK got them to walk away from it.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/6kwrs4pplmwj2nxzy9el73gx2w9cfn
I also can’t imagine this ends with the current far-right regime maintaining their grip on power, nor being allowed to continue the genocide of ethnic Russians in the east.
The deal should be… All Russian troops get pulled out of Ukraine. Ukraine gets a lump sum of all seized Russian assets in foreign nations, Russia agrees not to move troops within 100 miles of Ukraine’s border without Ukraine’s consent. Ukraine agrees to allow and even assist civillain Russian services with locating and returning living and deceased Russians.
The alternative is we take the limits off of what targets can be attacked within Russia, and enable Ukraine to enforce the conditions as proposed.
I’d also like to add that Russia and the US give up their UN “super veto” power. I don’t think anything good and effective can come from the UN when a single country can just “nope” any UN proposals.
Veto power in the UN is a short for “we will use nukes if you do this”. The UN is not world government, it’s the organisation which task(among many less important things) is to prevent nuclear war.
Ah, that explains why India and North Korea have veto power.
As good as this comment is, neither has the range or targeting capability that the US does or that the USSR did.
The security council veto was designed to keep the US and the USSR at the negotiating table and off the battlefield.
Then why are all those other nations on the security council? Just seems like we only need the memembers with veto power at this point.
We would have a much more effective UN if only Pakistan stopped vetoing everything!
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me 20 times and I should sign away half my country’s mineral wealth for no guarantees and no gains…
If somebody fools you twenty times they are (best case scenario) literally Loki.
I dunno, there are a tonne of incredibly stupid and uncreative people who conservatives believe every day for years. The part about loki seems to be a statisical outlier not just “best case scenario”, ya know?
So what’s the alternative?
Give Ukraine back their own nuclear defense. Suddenly Russia can tolerate a neighbour who isn’t a vassal state and can make their own determinations about which pacts they want to enter into with other countries. Ukraine joins NATO and the EU. Putin burns in hell. AKA Happy ending.
Give Ukraine everything they need to kick the Russians off their soil. Tomahawks, F35s, a million artillery shells a week, etc… lift all usage restrictions with the exception of civilian targets and infrastructure. Once every square inch of Ukraine is back in Ukrainian hands full NATO membership and a Marshall like recovery plan.
Or assassinate Putin. As long as Putin lives Ukraine is under threat.
and infrastructure.
No. That has to go. The war will end a lot sooner, if there aren’t any bridges and rails left, the Russkies can use to ship ammo and cannon fodder.
I meant civilian infrastructure. So like power stations or shipping centers that handle civilian goods or subways etc… If it carries a single artillery round it’s fair game.
How did we reach a point where the most hawkish warmongering psychos think they’re left-leaning?
Fighting fascists is a long standing tradition of the left. Pick up a history book idiot.
Why did the US install a fascist government in Russia?
That’s unsustainable, brainless and unrealistic, who is going to pay and fight if the war continues for 5 more years, what about 10 more years?
Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.
In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.
Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.
Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.
In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?
Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?
Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.
I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.
Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).
Do you have a better argument?
Looks like we’ll meet again here in a few years, after thousands more will die and more territory will be lost to argue again about how this war can hypothetically end, just because Zelensky’s ego was too big.
Don’t pretend like you give a shit about Ukrainian lives.
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
So, what’s your "totally realistic"TM solution?
And if you’re wrong and the war can indeed go on for 10 more years are you prepared to deal with the consequences of the destruction of Ukraine, potentially nuclear war and destabilization of Europe?
So you don’t actually want to talk solutions. I asked what is your solution? I will answer no more questions until you answer mine.
Weapons don’t win wars, people do, and Ukraine has a severe troops shortage right now that will only get worse as the war goes on. You can give them all the weapons in the world, if there’s no one there to fire them, they’ll still lose
Guess India just lacked the manpower to kick out the Brits. Same with the Japanese and *checks notes, 4 American ships.
Weapons absolutely matter.
That is fundementally wrong. Firepower absolutely makes up for numbers disadvantage.
if a hundred Russians, Norks and other Mercenaries and their vehicles get smoked in a battle by a single cluster bomb. Rinse and repeat
These people are delusional, the liberation of Ukraine can only happen if NATO troops land on the battlefield. And we all know that means nuclear war.
It only means Nuclear War if Putin decides he’s ready to die.
its not a gaurantee he flips a switch and decides to unleash fire the second NATO starts shooting at him, good chance he scuffles off and cuts his losses, if the fighting is contained to Ukraine and the border, its not a given that he’d condemn himself and his empire to death over the wasteland that is the Donbas
Theory that more weapons wins is based on Russia being overextended and not outproducing west by itself. Your point on “endless war being perfect US policy” is the right one. Wining a war is always terrible. It means an end to war, and just look at how sad everyone around here is about that prospect. That Ukraine could suffer far more destruction, as retaliation for the special weapons it uses for terrorism inside Russia, is far more likely, as is striking western nations as punishment for “breaking the script of a slow war of attrition with eventual Russian victory”.
ATCMS got Ukraine electricity sector destroyed, instead of winning. US can produce 60 per year.
Out producing the west by itself? Bwahaahhahahahaa.
3 times the artillery shells as US+Europe combined
Your propaganda bubble is not there to help you.
That an ally offers security guarantees and support to rebuild after defeating their biggest military threat?
Can you really not imagine an alternative?
I see plenty of alternatives, just not one in which people stop dying immediately.
History teaches us that Russia cease fire agreements mean that fewer die immediately but that lasts a far shorter time than you hope for. In the end, even more people die than before when Russia resumes their aggression.
This is not a prediction or an opinion. That are literally dozens of historical events to draw this information from.
According to what you’re saying, the only solution is NATO troops fighting in Ukraine because we cannot trust Russia in any way, shape or form.
When are you willing to enroll to go to the front?
You have textbook RT talking points. It’s so fucking obvious you’re a russian asset at the very keast
deleted by creator
If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately.
If Ukraine withdrew their troops, Ukraine would be no more - and there’s no indication Russia would stop there.
Lots of LLM bots today. We may need to start verifying accounts :/
I’ve been noticing this a lot. There’s a lot more Russian support in all my apps. I really think there’s a concerted effort that is now being fully enabled by our current administration.
If Russia withdrew their troops, there would be peace immediately
That’s technically true. However, Russia uses military force in its sphere of influence for a reason, not solely because Putin bad (which he is, I’m a commie and Putin is fascist-adjacent at best).
Russia, like all big capitalist countries, wants to secure a sphere of influence in which it can do easy trade, influence the politics, and generally have support from these countries. The US does this for example with western Europe through NATO, and with less diplomatic methods by supporting coups and invading other countries. China does this through economic trade and through massive investment projects. Russia is in a weak position internationally, barely recovered economically from the dismantling of the USSR, and it’s surrounded by former soviet republics very much in a similar plane (barely economically recovered from the 90s crisis as a consequence of the dismantling of the USSR).
These post-soviet republics, such as Ukraine or Georgia, adopted capitalism (as Russia did) in a very quick and disorderly fashion, and the resulting oligarchs and capitalist owners ended up fumbled in a mix of pro-russian and pro-european/US positions.
The EU and the USA both exert pressure on these countries to try and bring them to their side. Being economically and politically stronger, they can use trade, diplomacy, intelligence and economic means to alienate these countries front the Russian sphere of influence. Russia, in a more precarious and weaker economic and political position, simply doesn’t have the means to maintain the diplomatic, economic and intelligence means to maintain these countries aligned to itself.
The war in Ukraine, much as the interference in Georgian and Romanian elections by the EU, mustn’t be understood as a struggle between freedom and oppression. It’s sadly just a struggle between two capitalist empires, namely Russia and US/EU, fighting for the control of smaller countries that they want aligned to themselves.
Once Russia doesn’t have the means to economically, diplomatically and through intelligence, to influence its former sphere of influence into staying by its side, the only option left is the military route. The US and the EU know this, and they keep trying to mess with Russia’s sphere of influence for gains to their empires. The reality is that there is no good side and no bad side: it’s just struggle between opposing empires.
So yes, technically if Russia withdrew its troops, there would be peace. But this peace would mean that firstly the surrounding regions around Russia, and Russia itself, would become colonies and vassal states of the western world. It wouldn’t mean “freedom” for Ukraine, as we can see by the exploitative contract for the minerals of Ukraine that the US offers. If you think the EU will offer something substantially less exploitative towards Ukrainians, you’re wrong.
Ukraine, sad as it is, as long as it remains a state between empires, will suffer the effects of both. And only socialism in Europe and Russia can offer a meaningful response to this.
Mental gymnastics. Killing innocent people mercilessly is a problem, stop being an insane apologist for slaughter. Peace is peace.
- Russia was by no means forced into the conflict. They did it because Putin wants more power for himself.
- Russia has great diplomatic power. They managed to get a Russia loving president in US.
- If Ukraine falls, then there’s going to be some other nation that will be the ”state between empires”. Next will be Moldova. Maybe Russia is brave enough to take on the Baltic countries as well now when the future of NATO is uncertain. If that succeeds, then Poland will be next, and maybe also eastern Germany.
- Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees other than that Trump said that Putin said something. Why should Ukraine sign a deal that won’t end the war?
because Putin wants more power
They managed to get a Russia loving president in US
Holy moly “great men historiography” and “Russia is behind everything I hate” both in one single comment, that’s quite the feat. Great job firstly ignoring the material analysis and geopolitics of the situation and trying to explain history as “big man makes decision”, and then falling for the racist trope that the USA isn’t capable of electing a fascist without external interference, as if the US wasn’t founded in the fascist principles of the Lebensraum and slavery->segregation
If Ukraine falls
Ukraine will not fall. The objective of Russia in this war isn’t pure expansionism further to the west, it’s the imposition of its political principles and strategic desires in its sphere of influence. The Russian government knows it cannot control successfully for a long period of time the now (understandably) anti-Russian radicalised sections of central and western Ukraine, what it wants are concessions in geopolitical and strategic terms. Mark my words: the war in Ukraine will stop sooner than later, and after it, only some sections in eastern Ukraine will be annexed to Russia.
Furthermore your reasoning of “if this nation falls, there’s gonna be the next”, is exactly the way Russia feels about its geopolitical allies. In 1990, there was an agreement that NATO wouldn’t push beyond Germany, and that has been violated first with Poland and then with more countries. Why push a US-backed military alliance to the borders of the US-declared main geopolitical enemy? What consequences do you expect from that? Imagine a Russian-led military coalition pushing for the annexion of Mexico.
Ukraine rejected the US offer because it didn’t offer any safety guarantees
Regardless of safety guarantees, the resources of western Ukraine will be plundered by the NATO block, whether it be EU or the USA I cannot know, but mark my words when you see the economic situation of Ukraine in 2030
Really well explained in both your comments…
There wasn’t peace before Russia invaded. The far-right US puppet regime was slaughtering ethnic Russians in the east, and allowing NATO to move in troop and missile deployments to the Russian border.
Why would Ukraine behave differently after a Russian withdrawal, when they were escalating for 8 years prior to the invasion?
Arent your eyes watering? How can you even type? With putins removed jammed so far your throat? No gag reflex?
What is it about NATO & Israeli bots that causes y’all to so reflexively gravitate towards sexual violence? Is it part of the official training, or are y’all just like that?
You’re either a bot, a troll or just plain old stupid. Even if you’re just stupid, you’re not worth my time because I cant fix stupid, and there’s really no point in arguing with you.
deleted by creator
Can someone explain how you are supposed to get Russia to leave? Sanctions didn’t work, lethal aid didn’t work, F-16s didn’t work, and striking Russia itself isn’t either.
You can argue for the war to continue I suppose, but Ukraine isn’t winning and I’m not seeing anything here that would change that fact.
Russia isn’t winning, either.
Removed by mod
Ah, but have you considered that the good guy always wins?
This seems to genuinely be how libs think about this. There’s no need for any practical considerations about what is achievable or how long it would take or how much it would cost, because the people with the best ideas will always come out on top, no matter what. The only way to lose is to corrupt the purity of the cause and of the ideal, practical/material considerations are unimportant and somehow unclean and distasteful to even consider.
“Just world theory,” I suppose.
Are you sure that Ukraine is not winning?
It is a war of attrition with Russia against the amount of aid the West is willing to provide to Ukraine.
The only way Russia wins is if the US changes the balance of power by enriching Russia (dropping sanctions) or impoverishing Ukraine (dropping support).
If they were winning, we’d see russian advances on the battlefield stopping or being reversed, and what we are seeing is the exact opposite.
Probably by getting NATO & the US out, and the far-right regime they installed dismantled.
That would’ve have worked in February 2022, but Russia has commited too much to settle for just that.
Russia has never asked for anything else. They don’t want Nazis on their doorstep. Who would?
Can someone explain how you are supposed to get Russia to leave? Sanctions didn’t work, lethal aid didn’t work, F-16s didn’t work, and striking Russia itself isn’t either.
These things haven’t won the war, but they most definitely are working. Russia’s economy is crippled, their military is running out of old equipment to cannibalize, and they lack the capability to produce the kinds of advanced military equipment they need. They’ve been throwing bodies into the meat grinder trying to overwhelm Ukraine, but despite the high cost they are making very little progress. This is not a great long term strategy, but it’s the one Russia has been stuck with.
You can argue for the war to continue I suppose, but Ukraine isn’t winning and I’m not seeing anything here that would change that fact.
But what’s the alternative? Right now Ukraine can only fight or surrender. While they fight, they can try to negotiate a peace deal, but so far the only deals Putin and Trump seem willing to consider are nearly indistinguishable from surrender. Give Russia everything they want, give up on everything you want, stop the fighting for now but put nothing in place to ensure that Russia won’t just rearm and invade again later.
These things haven’t won the war, but they most definitely are working. Russia’s economy is crippled, their military is running out of old equipment to cannibalize, and they lack the capability to produce the kinds of advanced military equipment they need. They’ve been throwing bodies into the meat grinder trying to overwhelm Ukraine, but despite the high cost they are making very little progress.
Ukrainian propaganda that they’ve been winning all along. Russian military production is over 70% higher than at start of war, 30%/year last 2, and they gain territory every week with a weapons advantage including when new western arms shipments come in. Believing your fantasy is pro suiciding of Ukrainians.
The only deals Putin and Trump seem willing to consider are nearly indistinguishable from surrender.
The same deal from Russia was always on table for avoiding the war. Absolutely zero reason to think it was ever insincere or not meant to put both countries back at peace. If Ukraine’s goal for a ceasefire is to rearm and resume terrorism operations on liberated regions of Ukraine, then Ukraine needs a new leader to get a lasting peace. Again, zero reason that Russia won’t abide by peace it demands. US led Ukraine on the wrong track, and Ukraine Russia relations can get back on right track with “traditional attitude rulership”
You’re right, the Ukrainians should just give up on all these uppity notions of national sovereignty and self determination. They are in Russia’s sphere of influence, their place is to do what Russia says. It’s their fault if they don’t listen and Putin has to give them a black eye, that’s just him correcting them and showing he cares.
They should welcome their Russian liberators, so they can finally see how wonderful life under Russian rule is. Just ask the people of Bucha and Mariupol, they’ll be happy to tell you (if you can find a Ouija board in Cyrillic).
The Ukraine war has really opened my eyes as to how many people genuinely can’t tell the difference between “is” and “ought”
give up on all these uppity notions of national sovereignty and self determination
Mostly right. They should retain their sovereignty of what’s left of Ukraine. Give up ambitions of ruling over people they hate and have killed since 2014. They should realize that US puppetry did not pay off, and resume normal relations with Russia.
Bucha was a propaganda theater.
Absolutely zero reason to think it was ever insincere
Bahahaha. Bahahahahhahahahahahahaha. Fuck you.
There’s no evidence that Russia is going to lose steam economically or on the battlefield any time soon. Continuing to fight a losing war will only make any final deal between the US, Russia and Ukraine worse for the latter. There’s a reason the 2022 treaty that was proposed looks unrealistic today, and whatever deal they make now will be much better than when they finally run out of men in the Ukrainian army.
With the situation as it stands, negotiating is the best way out if you actually care about Ukraine. If you just want to weaken Russia then sure, fight to the last ukrainian.
https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/russias-economy-collapsing
That’s weird considering every single thing I’ve read about Russia’s economy recently has been that it’s going to collapse soon.
Edit: not a fascist
A lot of news about this conflict has been about what Ukraine would like to be true, rather than the facts.
Well, I ran this through several media bias checkers - it came back as unbiased. Site leans a little left, but that’s about it.
So tell me again, what are you trying to say? Because if your answer is more or less ‘it’s propaganda’ - I’m not sure I should entertain this topic any further.
I’m not sure I understand. The article you have linked concludes with:
Writing for The Bell, Russian economy experts Alexander Kolyandr and Alexandra Prokopenko also disputed what they described as “claims of an imminent catastrophe” for the Russian economy. “In our view, all things being equal, it’s unlikely that the economy will implode soon,” they write. They have a point.
Which just agrees with what I’ve said about sanctions not working.
Why the world should care
In our view, all things being equal, it’s unlikely that the economy will implode soon, forcing Russia to scale back its military campaign in Ukraine; or that deposits will be frozen. That doesn’t mean, however, that nothing will ever happen to deposits, nor that the banking sector will always be trouble-free. However, there are far bigger threats to the Russian economy at the moment: for example, a lack of transparent decision-making, little independent expertise, and the classification of much economic data all undermines trust in the authorities. This is more likely to, eventually, lead to some sort of hard-to-predict, man made crisis.
This is the article written by Alexander Kolyandr and Alexandra Prokopenko. https://en.thebell.io/no-russia-is-not-on-the-verge-of-a-banking-crisis/
So, they dispute the idea that there will be a credit/ banking crisis. They do not dispute that the Russian economy is in bad shape.
Figures of the week
Inflation in Russia might be starting to slow. Between January 1 and January 13, prices went up 0.67%, which suggests annual inflation of 9.9% (it was 9.5% last year). However, January’s figures reflect one-off boosts from increased sales of alcohol and tobacco, a further rise in the recycling fee for cars, higher public transport fares and a weakening ruble. Together with a fall in consumer demand and an increase in consumer borrowing, this could mean inflation will peak in the first half of the year. In the absence of external shocks (such as tighter sanctions) this could pave the way for lower interest rates.
So, no, they do not agree that sanctions would not work. In fact, they imply here that an external shock like tighter sanctions would likely cause inflation to continue rising.
What would be most likely to cause a man made crisis if not the value of the rouble decreasing further + a continued bloody war?
There’s no evidence
There’s no evidence period about anything that’s not propaganda right now. Either side could be days away from total collapse without any of us knowing it.
True, but there are a few things we can glean through the war propaganda. The fact that Ukraine is outgunned to this day on the battlefield isn’t some big state secret.
People expect Ukrainians to fight to the last man, for honor or some shit, and its gross. People are dying, and they’ve been at a stalemate for years. The outcome of this was never going to be good, considering the West has never given a single shit about Ukraine. Even before the war, the US toyed with them and blocked them from joining NATO for YEARS. With all the wars the West loses, you’d think they’d know when to call it off.
So they should give up and let Russia re-arm and try again?
Removed by mod
You’re right, they should just be at war forever. The American Way.
Maybe they will attack again, but is throwing every last body they have to their deaths somehow going to help?
The F-16s mainly replace the losses of Ukraine‘s Air Force.
Yes, but they very much were not the game changers as touted by western leaders. Russia still very much has air superiority, which has been key for their battlefield results.
So you believe there is some magical weapon “X”, when given to Ukraine, will make Russia leave? There is one, it’s nuclear bomb lol. Other than that, it’s not a specific weapon type that has to be provided, but a steady flow of a range of weapons.
The point I’m making is that they are receiving the weapons the US and Europe can make/spare, and they are still losing on the battlefield. If negotiating is not the way to go (as the meme implies) then what’s the way to victory? As it’s going, every man in Ukraine will die and they’ll still lose.
If Russia is winning the war of attrition, why did they bring North Korea in?
The evidence for that is tenuous at best.
Oh, okay. So no need to fight wars anymore. We can tell who will win by eye. And the country who we eye-spot will lose the war should just throw away their sovereignty to the aggressors from the start since they can’t win.
America spends the most on defense, so they’ll probably win in any war. Then, I guess America should just de-facto rule the world. United Earth of America, everyone. Resistance is futile.
So you think that if they keep fighting they’ll turn it around sometime in the future?
“Every man” will not die, because they intentionally not mobilising the young men. They also did hold for several months completely by themselves while West was scared and only talked about sending diapers & bandage. They also survived when US stopped their aid completely for 6 month. It’s been 3 years since the hold against a supposedly “2nd army in the world”, so they are definitely not losing. They did an incredibly well job given their resources, if they ask for more, who we are to decide for them?
“Every man” will not die, because they intentionally not mobilising the young men.
You mean literal children and university-age “men”? I guess everyone else dying would be fair game though, right?
What an insane statement.
it means, “below 25 won’t die”. Because they try to limit suffering lol. Unsure what you found so insane in that. Try harder to be offended
“Everyone dying except those under 25” is not “limiting suffering”.
They did an incredibly well job but are still losing the war and territory because Russia has more meat to throw on the battlefield and a bigger economy.
Dragging the war with foreign aid is not providing any resolution, it’s making the EU look as weak headless chicken who can’t come up with a concrete plan to stop a war on its doorstep.
They did an incredibly well job but are still losing the war and territory because Russia has more meat to throw on the battlefield and a bigger economy
Yup, unfortunately still loosing some territory while inflicting heavy losses to the other side
it’s making the EU look as weak headless chicken who can’t come up with a concrete plan to stop a war on its doorstep.
Yup, agreed
Dragging the war with foreign aid is not providing any resolution
“Dragging the war with current amount of foreign aid is not providing any resolution” FTFY
The only reason they haven’t lowered the age of conscription further is because it’s very unpopular and the current government can’t afford the political hit.
They have resisted to the best of their ability, yes. No one can deny that, but even then they are being pushed back more and more as time goes on. And that is, in fact, losing. Specially in a war of attrition like we are seeing.
Collapse of russia.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, good old “Let me post any literal shit because if readers want, they must prove it themself”. That’s impolite, but understandable. But for God’s sake, to post logically malformed statements and wait for readers to indicate it is a whole new level of egoism.
Not tell me, proud democrat, if Russia invaded with its army Ukraine in 2022, then with whom was Ukraine reaching those mystical 20 cease-fire agreements 8 years before? About what were there agreements when there litreally was no Russian army and Ukraine was fighting its own regions for years?
Ukraine and russia were at war in 2014 look up the minsk agreements. In 2022 putin decided the minsk agreements didn’t exist and invaded ukraine.
Now before you say anything. This took me 1 minute to look up via google on a wiki page
So proud, err. i guess repulican? Do you feel humbled at all by the evidence to backup ops picture i just provided?
This thing is a bot. Unless they decided that after not commenting on anything for over a year they would bust out anger over Ukraine.
Claiming everyone with another opinion a bot (a metal with no feelings and rights for its own truth) is so democratic.
I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine. I left the comment only to this particular post because it is screaming unproofed propaganda for the dictator Zelensky.
What have you been doing for a year, then? Do you stand behind Russia and agree that Ukraine gives up its land to Putin, a known dictator? What evidence do you have that Zelensky is a dictator? Don’t say elections because as you probably know he is following Ukrainian law by not holding them during war time.
> I do not and never had any anger over Ukraine.
> dictator Zelensky.
No, Ukraine was victim of a soft coup by the US in 2014, when they installed a far-right puppet regime, and then violated the agreements before moving on to a genocide of ethnic Russians in the Donbas region.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/6kwrs4pplmwj2nxzy9el73gx2w9cfn
“wikipedia-which-can-be-edited-by-anyone” is of course iron edidence to be humbled by.
But even if you take a little bit more time than just 1 minute to evaluate arguments or at least scroll that same page lower, you will see some interesting facts. Unsurprisingly, Ukraine was never planning to fullfill those agreements and Europe was only depicting diplomatic activity, trying to maximally arm Ukraine. None were giving a damn about people on the problem lands. Yes, they were obviously supported by Russia, but it was support, never ordering, in contrast to Ukraine planning to subjugate separatic regions.
So what again was the diplomatic role of the vaunted give-me-all-your-weapons beggar Zelensky?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#:~:text=Oleksii Arestovych%2C a,its armed forces.
Also, i forgot to say.
How are you going to discredit wikipedia as something that can be edited by anyone and say that makes it an unreliabke source and then point to another paragraph on the same page from the same source and call it evidence to back your argument. Either the source is good or it’s bad. You can’t have it both ways.
So the line you are referring to:
Oleksii Arestovych, a former member of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine said in 2024 that Ukraine never planned to fulfill the terms of Minsk II accords.[124]
Is immediately followed up by this section:
Angela Merkel said in 2022 that the agreement had been “an attempt to give Ukraine time”; Reuters reported that Ukraine used this time to strengthen its armed forces.[125] In an interview to Semen Pegov in 2024 former head of DPR Alexander Borodai explained that, in military terms, the Russian intervention in Ukraine should have started already in 2014 but Russia was not ready for that in economic, military and propaganda sense, which is why Russia entered the Minsk Agreements with no intention of complying, but it gave it time to prepare the full-scale invasion.
So it would seem that despite your insistance that the oroginal post is factually incorrect, and despite the fact that it would seem russia also had no intention of complying either. Russia did, in fact, break those agreements, making the original post at least partially correct. Ukraines intentions dont actually change that fact.
I think if you want to argue that the original post it propaganda, you should maybe back it up.
there litreally was no Russian army
This is factually incorrect.
Ok, then why post is calling 2.24.2022 russian invasion when according to you army was already there? More looks like epic russian pull-ups of reserves then?
Russia was supporting problematic regions to stand their own rights with arms and mens but nothing more. There were no official manifestation of russian intrusion. Even in the already mentioned here minsk agreements the main Kyiv opposition signs were from the DPR leader Aleksandr Zakharchenko and LPR leader Igor Plotnitskiy. Russian ambassador Mikhail Zurabov was only sideways witness along with Heidi Tagliavini OSCE representative.
But for God’s sake, to post logically malformed statements
What country doesn’t have an army? Russia obviously has an army. What else did they invade Ukraine with? The fact that you would leave this to me, the reader, to verify, is frankly ridiculous.
