• solsangraal
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    if you have to source your war machines from DPRK… you might be losing

    • rustyfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Russia is not loosing. This is just part of the 5D chess Putin is playing. Any minute he will make his master move and conquer Ukraine, destroy NATO and fingerbang your dad. Just wait. You’ll see.

            • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s very generous, thinking Putin would ever stick his dick in any of these tankies’ holes.

              They’re all just useful idiots, not even worth a bag of onions.

            • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              46
              ·
              4 months ago

              Oh my bad, for some strange reason I had assumed you were talking about Putin in a comment chain devoted to talking about Putin.

                • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  37
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Bruh, you literally just linked to a paragraph that makes the claim that the idea of a three-day conquest came purely out of American and Ukrainian speculation. This is exactly what I’m saying, save for that one Lukashenko quote.

                  I’m not going to get into the weeds with you about the invasion, but I am going to call you out for sheisty implied quotes. Any reasonable and adequately uninformed person would read your “three day war” comment in response to a comment chain about putin and assume you were talking about putin. You deserve to get called out for that. It’s misleading and disingenuous.

              • Devorlon
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I wouldn’t say the comment chain is talking about Putin, but someone aggrandising Putin.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  They’ve moved on from “Putin didn’t say that” to “it was just speculation” because this was never actually about Putin to them, it was about justifying Russia’s invasion.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That’s the problem. This is an old school war. If Russia can keep moving the front lines the correct direction them nothing else matters. I don’t say this because I like Russia but because it shows how much more support we need to be giving Ukraine. The manpower difference is something like 4 to 1. The casualty ratio is something like 3 to 1 which is high but within Russian standards. If nothing changes Russia will win this in another few years.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s a lot of truth to that unfortunately. Historically, Russia has shown many times that any number of casualties is acceptable .

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Historically inaccurate, and if they were sustaining “just” 1 in 4 they’re literally run out of guys before Ukraine.

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

          If all that they have to continue throwing at this war is casualties, Ukraine has already won. Russia may have plenty of meat left but they do not have equipment left. And no war, especially a modern one, is going to be won without equipment and vehicles. Ukraine has NATO support behind them and Russia has… North Korea, maybe China if they’re feeling charitable that day.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I mean, nothing changing is a big ask, on both sides. It’s still up in the air, and hinges on the American election more than anything else at this moment.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah we’re sorry about that. We still don’t know how we let our biggest adversary of the last 70 years infiltrate an entire political party.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Official and recognized military taxonomists insist that a vehicle doesn’t count as a tank unless it’s classified manuals and specs have been leaked in the World of Tanks forums.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Those don’t even look like tanks. Bad author. (OP’s author, this article is better.)

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “Panzer” is a general term in German, meaning armoured vehicle, not limited to main battle tanks (Kampfpanzer) mistranslations are thus exceedingly common.

      This in particular is a Raketenjagdpanzer meaning a Jagdpanzer (hunting tank) armed with missiles, not to be confused with the more general category Panzerjäger (tank hunter) which is any vehicle that hunts tanks, not just armoured ones, and not just ground vehicles, and not just vehicles but also units. That is, Jagdpanzer are Panzerjäger which are themselves Panzer.

      Some Anglos also get their standard issue underwear in a twist if you call the Gepard a flak tank – that’s quite literally its official designation in German: Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard, short FlakPz Gepard, more or less literally “flight offwarding cannon tank”. An “Infantry fighting vehicle”, fuzzy term if I’ve ever seen one (in Ukraine that can mean a Hillux) is a Schützenpanzer, “marksmen tank”.

      IMO those translation errors shouldn’t be corrected, they can only clean up English terminology.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Western journalists when any vehicle has the slightest amount of armour: it’s a tank!

      Anyway, this is sad and hilarious. The “second-best military in the world”, everyone!

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Reported as “subject doesn’t match headline”, however since this case is a subject of translation and there may be variations in translation software, I’ll allow it.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Thanks! Can’t believe it’s been a year since reddit imploded! 15 years there, walked away, never looked back!

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          4 months ago

          It was 13 for me. My cake day was a month ago. Goodbye to Reddit forever as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t even get an IPO offer despite being a “power user,” probably because I changed my profile to say “FUCK REDDIT!” and gave lemmy.world’s URL.

          • kboy101222@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            I shut down every subreddit I modded permanently and was publicly screaming “fuck reddit” and “fuck spez” until the last minute.

            Still got an IPO invite I ignored and even a mod meetup invite

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Huh. I wonder why I didn’t?

              I don’t really care since I wouldn’t have taken up their stupid offer, but I’m curious now.

              • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                4 months ago

                I assumed they sent it to everyone, even my old reddit account with only 2000 karma got it

                And even if i wanted, being not a us resident i couldn’t even actually get it

          • iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            That’s fucking weird, my reddit account wasn’t quite a decade old and I got an offer, ninja edit to add “that I obviously did not accept”

    • iamtrashman1312@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I can’t find anything on actual NK forces being deployed. Another user linked an article in English and near the end it postulates that this is sort of a win-win for NK that they can help their ally while gathering test data for the vehicles

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        And also get a king’s ransom off of Russia in exchange for saving their asses. I don’t know if they’re desperate for tanks yet, but that’s definitely the case with artillery. Calling them “allies” is probably a stretch.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Sending weapons to help defend against an illegal Invasion and genocide is different from supporting an illegal Invasion and genocide. Should Sweden have sent weapons to Germany in 1941 after the US started sending weapons to the UK?

      • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I didn’t say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn’t change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.

        So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s war, fairness doesn’t come into it.

          As for whether it’s an escalation, you’re right that it’s not.

          • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I was originally pointing out that if NATO can supply Ukraine than North Korea can supply Russia. Nothing anyone can do about it but complain to deaf ears.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ok, fair enough, but then would it have been fair for Sweden to do so if they had not declared themselves neutral? The US was neutral too. Was it unfair for the US to send weapons to the UK or Ukraine? I would argue that it wasn’t, because of the ethics of defending countries from outside attack, and upholding international law.

          So then, what is the basis of “fair”? Ethics? International law? Statements by Kim? Statements by Biden?

          I mean, I pointed out why the ethics argue against it, and for international law, Russia’s importation of weapons from North Korea violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

          Kim’s statements don’t seem to justify this, since Kim has not made any outright statements about Ukraine, and has only pledged to supply weapons to Russia for “defence against aggression”, which does not match Russia’s situation. NK is basically saying they’re neutral, and then sending weapons to Ukraine, which doesn’t seem very fair.

          Biden definitely isn’t ok with NK sending weapons, and his administration has denounced North Korea’s involvement and pointed out that is illegal under international law.

          No party has made any statements justifying North Korea sending weapons to Ukraine, so I can hardly see how it’s fair.

          • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I find it funny that you’re using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.

            NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

            From Wikipedia.

            So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.

            • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              So you’re equating the 10 year-long invasion of Ukraine, complete with attacks on civilian targets, torture, and genocide, with the NATO airstrikes on the Yugoslav military during the Kosovo War?

              OK russkiy.

              • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                No. I’m equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    4 months ago
    Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Left-Center
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: Germany
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.