I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
I hate how “anti-war” has been hijacked by these people to mean, let imperialist countries invade whoever they want with no consequences. (in the case of tankies, any imperialist country that isn’t in NATO).
No, it’s because “America bad”. There’s a lot of reasons to hate America, and the drip feeding of munitions to Ukraine is one of them. I think we should have been sending everything from the start with the only restriction being no hitting civilian targets. A million 155 shells a week. Tomahawks. Predator drones. Hell, even F-15s. I agree, end the war, but end it in a Ukrainian victory with their borders restored.
The best way to minimize the overall violence of a fight is to use enough force in the first moments to end the fight.
Generally speaking. Maybe.
It’s even worse than that. It’s “America bad, therefore Russia good.” As if there has to be some sort of cosmic balance.
Got me laughing, very true observation
There was never any chance of Ukrainian victory. Russia is not that weak and everyone knew it from the start.
But arming ukrainians and sending them to die weakens Russia, so the US likes that. It’s all a game, and none of it was ever in the interest of Ukraine nor its people.
Russia has a long and proud history of losing to "smaller, weaker " countries. Russo Japanese war, WW1, Polish Soviet war of 1919, the winter war, Afghanistan, Chechen war until they paid homage to the Kadyrovs. there’s no reason to think there was never a chance at Ukrainian victory. Russia fumbles the bag plenty. But I get it. America bad so Russia stonk and good.
I think this kinda reductionist bs abolishes any kind of discussion. What does this have to do with anything? Where did I say such things?
Right there. You said it right there And you’re changing the subject. Russian victory was never a forgone conclusion. History has shown us that.
Kyiv in three days!
I had a reply for a similar comment; trying to link it here, to avoid copy-pasting: https://lemmy.ml/post/23582488/15569369
I’m sure you’ll just dismiss this all as Western Imperialist propaganda since it disagrees with your worldview, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Kyiv_convoy#Three_day_war_plan
https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/24/putin-thought-he-could-capture-kyiv-in-three-days-leaked-docs-claim-18342384/
Of course, in public, Putin was much more pragmatic.
He said it would be two weeks.
https://time.com/3259699/putin-boast-kiev-2-weeks/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/putin-russian-forces-could-conquer-ukraine-capital-kiev-fortnight
So would you prefer, “Kyiv in two weeks?” I’ll go with that. Exactly the same stupid idea.
Seems to me that Ukraine still exists as a country and that wouldn’t be the case if not for international support.
Are you hoping for a restoration of the Soviet Union? Any other countries on your list that don’t deserve to exist?
Yet 3 years later Russia still has not completed its objectives, took its eye off Syria, and needs troops & ammo from North Korea.
And all it took was 1,000,000 dead Ukrainians!
Murdered by Russian. So tell me, in this peace of yours, who gets what and why?
You’re blaming them for defending themselves???
Would have been nice to send a message to Vlad on day 1.
“Turnabout is fair play”