• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 months ago

    Of course they do. That’s what happens when you invade someone, the someone you invade also hits back at you.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      In fact this is basically the only way for the war to end. By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.

      • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.

        Ukraine captured land in kursk and this did not cause the Russians to come to the negotiating table, nor signal that they will weaken their demands. In fact, they simply started taking land even faster in Ukraine because Ukraine had committed resources into kursk instead of the front lines.

        All it goes to show is that westerners have a complete non-understanding of this war.

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          We have a strategy-god here everybody!

          “Westerners” have a great understanding of this war. You cannot win a war by just defending your land from your own land.

          Fuck russian terrorist shitheads.

    • pop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Same applies for Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. You’d be totally fine with that.

      right? right?

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 months ago

          Nonono you’re not supposed to have principles, you’re supposed to just pick sides instead otherwise ‘what about USA’ won’t work as a gotcha. Just think of the poor tankies, whatabout USA is all they have, would you really tankie that away from them?

          • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Imagine thinking you got Lemmy by suggesting that Vietnam should have counter invaded America

            1. What? “You’ve got Lemmy” is that a parallel universe Jennifer Anniston and Adam Sandler movie?
            2. Total suicide mission, but Vietnam taking Portland, Oregon, would have been weird.
  • SovietyWoomy [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 months ago

    The US: This is the most important election of your entire life and if you vote wrong there will never be another election

    Also the US: ensures there will never be another election anywhere by starting world war 3

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Very unlikely. There was a possibility early on that Putin would decide to go out with a fiery bang of glory, but time passed and nothing happened. He might threaten use of nukes, but won’t actually use them for fear of retaliation. The whole fucking point of nuclear weapons was deterrence until the brain-dead US decided to actually use them. One can hope the world learned their lesson.

          • RISC_Xi [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            2 months ago

            Why are you presenting it as a fact when the article says

            Movements of planes used by top Kremlin officials show Putin may be in a hideaway near Surgut in western Siberia, it is claimed.

            Also “it is claimed” by the Ukrainian side. Do you have any Russian sources to corroborate this?

            • BrikoX@lemmy.zipOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I stated my opinion and linked to the article that supports that assertion. If Russia was unhappy with that “claim” they could have refuted it by a simple image or video, which they didn’t do.

              Do you have any Russian sources to corroborate this?

              Lack of refuting from Russia is confirmation of that being the case in my eyes. If you need a detailed response from Russia’s spokesperson, then there isn’t one.

              • RISC_Xi [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                24
                ·
                2 months ago

                linked to the article that supports that assertion

                It doesn’t support that assertion at all. It’s highly speculative based on flight movements and a lack of response from russia lol

                Also if you take lack of response from the other side as a confirmation, then oh boy have you checked what the RT and TASS are saying about the war?

          • Comment105@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Putin is not a coward, he is brave, wise and strong.

            He is leading the world into a better future. He will remove western influence from Afro-Eurasia and maybe even South America.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Every war is weird it’s own way, but that thing is probably unprecedented. How can a war-torn country fight having one hand strapped to the back with a country having 4x it’s population and resources? And still managing to resist after 2,5 to 10 years of warfare? Imagine that in fiction and you’d call it unbelievable.

    • koper@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      That analogy is faulty. It’s undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Could soviets used the lendlease arms on nazi germany in ww2? There is no question, there is a bunch of appeasing countries and Ukraine which is fighting for its right to exist.

        • koper@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Slow down. I merely clarified the matter being discussed. You might have a clear opinion on that matter, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is a dilemma without a simple answer.

          Also note that the US was attacked and got directly involved in the war mere months after the lend-lease act was signed. That is what NATO is trying to avoid. The difference is that the Nazis did not have nukes and were already fighting a two-front war, so they had little power or incentive to escalate.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            They were attacked by a nation that was going to attack them anyways. The history of pre-war / WW2 Japan made confrontation inevitable. This isn’t “a dilemma”. It’s sacrificing human lives of a defending country because of simple inaction. The war escalated when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022. Russia started the war in 2014 by seizing sovereign territory. They weren’t holding back. They aren’t avoiding balistic missiles. They get their shit from their allies.

            So if you want a dilemma, here it is - do we give up every country that doesn’t have nukes to nuclear powers? Because that’s what is being advocated for by tying their hands.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        What analogy? I didn’t draw any direct comparison, I think. Was there one?

        Arms are given to Ukraine with every state dictating how they should not be used, with Ukraine being autonomous in their decision-making – as it sounds, they consult other countries, but decide things themselves. To my brief knowledge of past wars it was usually a ‘use how you want’ deal or a direct involvement and control from other party with boots on the ground, both don’t fit this exact situation. And it becomes even more unique since there are not one party, but a lot of them, all citing their own conditions on exact shipments, adding even more confusion to the situation.

        I want to highlight the fact it’s one of the first very public case of countries donating weapons with such policies limiting their usage against enemy troops.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Technically, yes, the offensive does consume like 3x of what is needed for defense the same position, but it works right only if that’s a war of equals. Ukraine was and is underpowered on it’s own, and even with the stuff other countries donated. Them gaining an edge in the warzone in the last years often involved either technological trickery or great insights and tactics using their limited resources.

        One other thing that breaks that rule and makes this change in the narrative significant - is that russians could deploy their bombers, fuel, supply centers near the border, thinking they can’t get effecrively hit, that giving them a big boost whatever they do, and if this handicap gets denied, they’d have a harder time supplying another operation from further away.

  • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    nations supplying weapons to Kyiv have the right to limit their use

    What a pathetic statement. “We’re going to encourage Ukraine to start WW3 and then hand the responsibility to the individual states.”

  • rollerbang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 months ago

    But was this ever a question? The problem was if they can use “gifted” weaponry for this purpose.

    • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      By international law they can use weapons supplied by other nations even for long range strikes into Russia yes, to my knowledge it’s just a gentleman’s agreement that they follow the terms of the nation supplying them. Not really a point of contention though as it would be idiotic to violate those terms at risk of not being supplied anymore.

      The only point of contention is whether supplying nations should decide to allow strikes into Russia with their equipment because Russia continues to threaten that it would see that as an act of war from the supplying nation. So legally nothing wrong with it but you have to weigh that decision with possibility of starting World War III or a nuclear apocalypse.

  • Hellsfire29@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Even if it results in Russia retaliating against the west? Hopefully there’s an end to it all before then

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Two and a half years into a 3 day invasion and Russia wants to attack NATO countries in retaliation for Ukraine using weapons gifted to them at their full capabilities after themselves receiving additional weapons from Iran they use without restraint? It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for them.