Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 41 minutes later[^][v]#1,224,447
Propaganda is a hell of a drug. Russia (and China) are kings of spreading online propaganda, and the last ~8 years of US history is proof of just how dangerous such a power can be.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,460
You're misreading it a bit. The real feeling is "why should I care about some Russian shit?"
And yes, you can go all the way back to 2014 and before when this Crimea shit first began - before Trump even announced his candidacy - and I was on exactly the same page then as now.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,465
@previous (A)
I love Putin exactly as much as I love Zelenskyy: I could give a fuck about Slavs doing Slav shit to each other. It's got nothing to do with us.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 58 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,500
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Would you say that historically, when Russians conquered territory, they treated the civilian population there gently after the war?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 30 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,515
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
We're not in WW3 right now so are we just letting the Russians do their thing? It seems like those two options are maybe not the only ones.
This is a peculiar position for a libertarian turned nationalist to hold though. It's neither libertarian (war is a clear violation of the NAP) nor Nationalist (war deprives the invaded country of its sovereignty). Really makes you think. 🤔
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,519
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I'm also quite isolationist. I think my position on Ukraine (and foreign interventions generally) would fit in quite well with Ron Paul/Murray Rothbard style right-libertarianism.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,523
@previous (I)
So, Russia invades a sovereign nation, gets everything it wants by force and killing civilians and terrorism, and that's good? I find that hard to agree with.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,527
@previous (I)
The alternative is for Ukraine to continue to fight back with the help of the West, and to send Putin running home with his Commie tail between his pale, hairy, old-man legs.
(Remember when that same media told you Saddam was gonna attack you in 45 minutes with WMDs?)
The corporate media of the West =/= "the majority of the world's media". Just like all of CNN's "retired generals" (and who now work as salesmen for Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) who have spent a year cheerleading the war don't represent actual military opinion.
In any case, you have your opinion and I have mine. We'll see who ends up being right.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,535
@previous (I)
I listen to media from the world, and they all have the same basic assessment of the war in Ukraine. I am asking what your sources are for your opinion.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,545
@1,224,519 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
A right libertarianism that can only be enacted by states which are overwhelmingly militarily superior to their neighbors seems like a very limited ideology that leads to arms races that make the cold war look like 2 kids fighting in a sandbox.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,224,550
@1,224,522 (I)
That is them basically resigning themselves to be annexed by Russia eventually though right? I can't imagine they'd agree to that so long as there are enough men to fight.
> That is them basically resigning themselves to be annexed by Russia eventually though right? I can't imagine they'd agree to that so long as there are enough men to fight.
No, Putin's goals for the invasion haven't changed since last February. Western Ukraine is about as Russian as Mexico and, as the Kremlin keeps saying, occupation of Ukraine is not an aim of their 'SMO'. He wants the east and south, what he considers to be the Russian parts.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,562
@1,224,545 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I never claimed it would or could be appropriate for every country in every situation. Slavs have been fighting over this shit for centuries. America isn't going to fix it.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,572
@1,224,558 (I)
I mean based on the initial invasion, which stretched from Luhansk to Kharkiv to Kherson to Kiev, his goal was to overthrow the Ukranian government and replace it with a sympathetic Russian one like there is in Belarus or was in Ukranie before the Euromaidan. He may have had to reassess his goals in the intervening year since losing most of the territory conquered in the first week, including territory in the east that has been "annexed" by Russia but which is currently under control of the Ukranian government.
There will eventually be some peace deal but what he can actually get depends on what he can actually conquer and hold which seems to be not a lot. I would also count on a very large amount of irregular resistance in whatever territory they end up with, which will probably kill a couple thousand Russian troops a year. And even if he can get them to not join NATO, he has permanently lost Ukraine to the EU, Europe, and "The West", which was like his stated reason for launching this in the first place. Hundreds of thousands dead and wounded for nothing. So pointlessly stupid.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,573
@1,224,562 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
The French Germans Spanish and English fought for centuries and now don't. Korea and Japan hate eachother viscerally but don't fight anymore. I think pretty clearly the U.S. serving as the de facto world army has pushed many countries to not wage war. If Ukraine were in NATO Russia wouldn't have set foot in it. Like idk this all seems pretty straightforward to me.
> I mean based on the initial invasion, which stretched from Luhansk to Kharkiv to Kherson to Kiev, his goal was to overthrow the Ukranian government and replace it with a sympathetic Russian one like there is in Belarus or was in Ukranie before the Euromaidan. He may have had to reassess his goals in the intervening year since losing most of the territory conquered in the first week, including territory in the east that has been "annexed" by Russia but which is currently under control of the Ukranian government.
If they could pull it off, Euromaiden wouldn't have succeeded in the first place. Clearly Western Natojew influence had already eclipsed Russian.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,585
@1,224,573 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Shit changes. Italy was on the Allies side in WWI and the Axis in WWII. We nuked the Japanese 78 years ago and now they're our BFFs.
I think the United States should not be the world's policeman. If Yurops want Ukraine to be in the EU or whatever, they can fix that up themselves. They ran worldwide empires for hundreds of years - if Britannia rules the waves, it can rule Ukraine. I just want America First.
I mean shit the Germans alone have a proven ability to run the Russians all the way back to the Urals, let alone Ukraine.
> And even if he can get them to not join NATO, he has permanently lost Ukraine to the EU, Europe, and "The West"
What will remain of 'Ukraine' when this is over is something I think he will be indifferent to 'the West' claiming. He wants everything from Kharkov to Odessa. The resource-rich and geopolitically important part of this country (and also, according to his selective reading of history, 'rightfully Russia'). If the West wants to finance a useless and unprofitable rump state for time immemorial (which it now has to, having recklessly promised the Ukrainians victory), I don't think he cares. He figures Ukraine will be divided like Korea was. He'll get the useful part of the country, Europe will get a land-locked money pit.
To your point about it all being for nothing, he believes he's overturning the unipolar hegemony of the US and restructuring the global order. He believes the West going all-in on this (for them) relatively unimportant war will weaken them. We'll see if he's right or wrong. America may be able to go another 32 trillion into debt paying for Europe to stay afloat, providing they raise the ceiling again.
> >as the Kremlin keeps saying > Ah yes, the ever honest and trustworthy Kremlin. We should be taking what they say at face value.
Yes, you should, because then Ukraine wouldn't be getting systematically destroyed because credulous dipshits have been convinced that "If Putin's shambolic army of alcoholics and criminals wins in Ukraine, he's then going to invade the rest of Europe and roll all the way to America!" Ukraine was, is and will forever be his red line. Ukrainians are paying now for, as you put it, the West not taking him at face value.
> You never gave any sources btw besides "its my opinion" lmao
Oh, and as for sources, I already said: use actual Ukrainian military commanders on the ground, instead of fund-raising actors like Zelenskiy and CNN's endless parade of "retired generals" (none of whom ever won a war in their entire careers):
> >article starts by saying russian losses are nearly double ukranian losses > >somehow this means ukraine is losing the war > lol
So you didn't read to the next part where it says those figures are utter horseshit and the Ukrainian government never reveals its casualty numbers, hence the Washington Post asking actual Ukrainian commanders who - under the threat of prison for talking about the reality - say that unprepared Ukrainian kids are being sent to the front to be slaughtered? Quelle surprise. No wonder CNN headlines are your level.
I know this war is hilarious entertainment for you, but for Ukrainians, it is absolute hell. This Ukrainian woman is a university professor and vlogs daily about the reality there:
One entire corridor of her university is now covered with the portraits of young men from her university who have died fighting in the east. Note: these were not soldiers. These were students with no military training. The kinds of students described in that WaPo article who are dying in the hundreds every day.
These are the kinds of sources you should be using, and whom you'll never see or hear on CNN. Remember stories like these when you're "lol"ing about this war.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,596
@previous (I) > So you didn't read to the next part where it says those figures are utter horseshit and the Ukrainian government never reveals its casualty numbers, hence the Washington Post asking actual Ukrainian commanders who - under the threat of prison for talking about the reality - say that unprepared Ukrainian kids are being sent to the front to be slaughtered?
Kids being slaughtered is par for the course in war. You're jumping to conclusions saying that people dying and people being naturally burnt out from a drawn out war means they're obviously losing. > I know this war is hilarious entertainment for you
It's not, your delusional slathering of Kremlin cock and balls is hilarious to me. If you ask me, the person who thinks Ukraine should just roll over and let a hostile foreign power invade them isn't taking the war seriously. Yeah the world should just let Russia do this one act of egregious, unprovoked war, they will definitely stop after just this one time! They will definitely just take this one area of Ukraine and let the rest of the country live peacefully afterwards. It totally won't be sending a message to them that they have free reign to do whatever the hell they want with no consequences.
My opinion is that Russia will militarily win this war (but it will come at very severe long-term economic costs). That is not akin to worshipping the Kremlin. This modern trend of tying opinions to desires needs to die a deserved death.
Let me ask you a question: can you conceive of a scenario where Russia achieves its objectives in Ukraine?
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,598
@previous (I)
You said that you think Ukraine should give up and allow Russia to win. That's as pro-Kremlin as it gets, bud.
> Let me ask you a question: can you conceive of a scenario where Russia achieves its objectives in Ukraine?
Of course. I can also conceive of a scenario where you stop huffing Kremlin propaganda, but that doesn't mean I think it will happen any time soon.
> Kids being slaughtered is par for the course in war.
By the way this flippant remark needs comment. No country has seen this scale of losses since WW2. Ukraine (one third the population of Russia) is losing one and a half times more "kids" in a week than the US lost in 20 years in Afghanistan. A generation of Ukrainian youth is being wiped out by convicted Wagner 'orcs'. Thousands of "kids" being slaughtered a week is absolutely NOT "par for the course in a war".
> You said that you think Ukraine should give up and allow Russia to win.
Because it's going to happen anyway and so to prolong the war is only to prolong Ukrainian misery and death. If Zelenskiy really feels Ukrainians are ready to die for "Western freedom" (they're not, per that article; they're being forced to fight) then he should undo his law forbidding all Ukrainian males from leaving the country. I GUARANTEE 90% of Ukrainian men will flee the country if he does that.
Anonymous I triple-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,601
@1,224,598 (B) > Of course. I can also conceive of a scenario where you stop huffing Kremlin propaganda
The Washington Post citing multiple Ukrainian commanders is not Kremlin propaganda, and neither are Ukrainian university professors talking about the reality of the situation rather than the imbecilic Western "slava Ukraini" narrative.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,602
@1,224,599 (I)
And what do you think will happen if Ukraine just throws their hands up and says "we give up"? Sunshine and rainbows and happy days for all Ukrainians? An era of peace and stability in eastern europe? You're delusional.
@1,224,600 (I) > Because it's going to happen anyway
With the entire west supporting Ukraine? It isn't the sure thing you think it is. > I GUARANTEE 90% of Ukrainian men will flee the country if he does that.
Shocking that most people will engage in self preservation when given the choice. Wow you're like a psychologist or something, comrade.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,610
@1,224,587 (I) > What will remain of 'Ukraine' when this is over is something I think he will be indifferent to 'the West' claiming. He wants everything from Kharkov to Odessa. The resource-rich and geopolitically important part of this country (and also, according to his selective reading of history, 'rightfully Russia'). If the West wants to finance a useless and unprofitable rump state for time immemorial (which it now has to, having recklessly promised the Ukrainians victory), I don't think he cares. He figures Ukraine will be divided like Korea was. He'll get the useful part of the country, Europe will get a land-locked money pit.
The West doesn't "need" to do anything. Trump and Obama/Biden sold the Kurds down the river and fled Afghanistan; Nixon achieved peace with honor in Vietnam, etc. We spent trillions of dollars had thousands die fighting those wars. If we can turn our back on them we can also turn our back on the Ukrainians. I don't think we will though because having a friendly neighbor that has very large borders with Russia is very much in Western interests.
> To your point about it all being for nothing, he believes he's overturning the unipolar hegemony of the US and restructuring the global order. He believes the West going all-in on this (for them) relatively unimportant war will weaken them. We'll see if he's right or wrong. America may be able to go another 32 trillion into debt paying for Europe to stay afloat, providing they raise the ceiling again.
Ukraine costs (comparatively) pennies for the west to prop up relative to what Russia is expending in blood and treasure and equipment to capture it. If he is hoping the Western world will run out of money when the global reserve currency is the USD. almost every large financial institution in the world is Western, the head of the IMF is whoever Americans want him to be, etc. he is a tremendous fool. Russian government revenues are down like 25% YoY. By the end of the decade Russian fossil fuels will be a single digit percentage of European imports and no equivalently wealthy countries exist to pick up the slack. This is an insane thing for a head of state to believe. And this is all with the west sending to Ukraine basically surplus soviet equipment along with some stuff that the West used in the first Gulf War. Hell he may actually be saving the U.S. money on Bradleys they were going to have to decommission anyway. The West has barely dipped its toe in the water here and he thinks they've gone all-in?
Even if he succeeds he hasn't overturned the unipolar anything. He managed to burn millions of stockpiled soviet artillery shells, and tens of thousands of soviet vehicles and a quarter of a million men in order to capture like a couple thousand square miles from a country that shares a border. It's a truly fantastical delusion. Where's the CIA when you need them?
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,224,616
@1,224,610 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Stop making sense! The US should stop spending money on defense and foreign aid and should spend that money on its citizens, who by the way shouldn’t receive a dime in social services because that wasn’t specifically enumerated in the constitution… by the way did I mention that I’m a libertarian and don’t believe in government regulations but god damn those techie libtards at Google who censor us, shut them down!