You must log in or # to comment.
A prolonged incursion into Russia could escalate the conflict, drawing in other nations and potentially leading to a catastrophic global confrontation.
Bit of a joke to write this, isn’t it. The one country that is escalating things is Russia. They could have always moved back and have given up and this would all be over. Maybe Ukraine would leave the Russian territory if Russia leaves Ukrainian territory? Not sure that’s on the table.
Edit: coming back to all the reactions. Just wow, hilarious.
Edit2: haha, they even come back to monitor edits. Fun times.
- NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
- The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements
- The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine In May of [2022] Ukrainian media reported that then-British prime minister Boris Johnson had flown to Kiev the previous month to pass on the message on behalf of the western empire that “Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: ‘I want to bring up a warrior’: Ukraine’s far-right children’s camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2022: Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023: NATO “most violent, aggressive alliance in the world”
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
Why would the Murican give such assurance to a failing empire? What would the Russians do ? Not collapse ? Kill a bunch of people as they retreat ?
Do you have a source of the genocide that happened in Donbas?
Russia is so terrified of Nato encroachment that they stripped their defenses along the Finnish boarder shortly after Finland joined Nato, and they’ve moved all the defenses at this point (first weapons, now troops) out of Kaliningrad.
- Invading via Finland isn’t a thing. Ask Bonaparte or Hitler. There’s nothing up there but lakes, mud, and mosquitos.
- Where were Russian speakers being killed by government-backed neo-Nazis for the last decade? In eastern Norway? No, in eastern Ukraine.
- The US doesn’t have nuclear weapons deployed in Finland, and no known plans to. NATO Ally [Poland] ‘Ready’ to Station Nuclear Weapons on Its Territory
.
There’s nothing up there but lakes, mud, and mosquitos
That’s a rude way to describe Saint Petersburg.
Do you know what escalation means? Russia hasn’t escalated shit since it launched the invasion. Each thing Russia has done since the invasion is part of the invasion. They haven’t attacked other nations, they haven’t embargoed or disrupted trade beyond their own borders, they haven’t introduced new weapons platforms, they haven’t made attempts to decapitate Ukrainian leadership.
Ukraine and the West are escalating. They’ve been escalating literally since the end of the Cold War. Each country on the border of Russia that got NATO nuclear sites was an escalation. Each color revolution was an escalation. Each sanction was an escalation. Each call for a no fly zone was an escalation. Each new weapons platform sent to Ukraine was an escalation. Each use of Western military intelligence to coordinate Ukrainian strikes was an escalation. Each time Ukraine struck civilian infrastructure inside Russia was an escalation.
You are using words you hear people say but you don’t understand them.
Russia has had one demand since the USSR was dismantled - no NATO operations in Ukraine. When the USA escalated and supported the coup in 2014, Russia escalated and took Crimea. When the fascists in Ukraine escalated and sent paramilitary forces to terrorize and mass murder ethnic Russians, Russia escalated with paramilitary of its own in the region. When Ukraine escalated by pursuing NATO operations in its country and NATO made noise like it might, like when Trump escalated and approved the first weapons shipment to Ukraine in US history, Russia escalated by invading the border region. That’s all of Russia’s escalatory moves - 1 every 5 years or so. It’s Ukraine and the West that have escalated since then. Sanctioning Russia was an escalation. Seizing Russian assets in violation of international law was an escalation. Sending lethal aid each year totalling more than the entire Russian military budget was an escalation. Sending Western intelligence, trainers, and even combatants to harm Russia are all escalatory moves.
They’re out there watching you 👀
“The winning side could simply surrender and give everything back”
I am a geopolitical mastermind
It’s a .ml community. What did you expect?
Yeah I’m on the verge of blocking ml as well as hexbear, it’s insane the level of mental gymnastics that’s happening. Like what do they think Russia is going to do any less damage to the world than America if they get the chance?
do they think Russia is going to do any less damage to the world than America if they get the chance
Very probably, yes.
Around 20 years ago Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them. Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Since then Russia, rejected by the Global North, has had no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead of neocolonizers. Hence BRICS+ and the larger developing multipolar bloc that’s going its own way, ignoring the US’ “rules-based international order” sanctions, developing its own international balance of payments outside of US dollar hegemony, and working to get out from under the boot of the IMF’s & World Bank’s debt traps.
Why did the US reject Russia from joining NATO? Because the US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because then it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial “shock therapy” plundering of it, which started under Yeltsin and ended under Putin. That’s why the US has a special hate-on for Putin.
Compare what Russia has done in the last 80 years to the US:
- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
As for the US’ actions against post-Soviet Russia in particular:
The US has wanted to break up or otherwise weaken/isolate Russia ever since almost immediately after the break-up of the USSR. That’s why it’s been expanding NATO ever-closer to Russia despite originally having sworn up & down never to move one inch eastward. The US couldn’t allow a Ukrainian government to stand that was friendly with Russia. That’s why it couped Ukraine’s government in 2014.Not about that. They have some misguided notion that Russia stands for some imaginary form of communism that is the answer to everything.
And everything bad in the world is because of Capitalism. And also, everything west of Russia is “The west” and the entire “the west” is one entity.
That’s a shit strawman. Literally no one thinks that.
Unfortunately, I’ve had plenty of conversations here with people who think exactly this.
So yes, there are people who literally think this.
No, that’s just what you put in their mouths because you’re stupid and intransigent
Show me a Lemmy conversation where someone thought that Russia stands for communism in any way. Only right-wing doofuses ever make such claims.
deleted by creator
Russia’s current position is, that for ceasefire negotiations to start, Ukraine first has to demilitarize. In other words, no. There aren’t any ceasefire negotiations starting any time soon.
Removed by mod
Oh god, what have I done… 😱
yup, and the Kursk stunt put an end to that
looks like western sponsors of the war might have had enough of Zelensky
It is time for sober reflection. The Ukrainian people deserve leadership focused on practical, achievable objectives, not on grandstanding gestures. While courage and defiance are admirable, they must be tempered with strategic wisdom. The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses? War is more complicated than “just liberate the occupied territory”. And while it’s true that this counteroffensive has its risks. Everything they do or don’t do has its risks.
They’re suggesting that everything is Zelensky’s fault so they can blame him, turn public opinion against him (remember how much everyone thought he was a hero last year), so that when they coup/assassinate him people won’t mind.
I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
What is Ukraine’s path to victory?
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I wish I had Russia’s economic hardships https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399
I’m sorry but Russia is 100% winning and has been for quite a while now
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses?
That’s clearly a losing strategy, too, but the “we’ll fight them to the last Ukranian” crowd is still too far from reality to admit it.
The best decision for the Ukranian people is to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible, which means accepting that when you are losing a war the peace isn’t going to involve crazy shit like getting more territory than you started with (Crimea). They’ve lost, and they can come to terms with it now or do so later after a bunch more Ukranians die only get a worse outcome.
The reason the Ukranian government isn’t doing that is because their NATO puppetmasters don’t give a shit about the casualties of their proxies – they just want to bleed Russia as much as possible. So without the option to negotiate, and with the impossibility of winning on the main front, they have to try Hail Mary gambits like the Kursk invasion.
This is not a counter offensive, it’s a political stunt for the benefit of the smooth brained western public.
Ah, so the next phase of Amerikan ‘friendship’ is due to start. (Y’know, the point where the betray they guy they’ve been funding for like a decade and send him scurrying into a mountain range if he lives, right?)
Fuck Russia. Enjoy the incursion, Putin.
so brave!
Removed by mod
That’s such an incredible reaction to reading an article published in mainstream western media.
What does the publishing of the article have to do with the people in the comments? There’s no link.
People in the comments are discussing the article and its implications.
Removed by mod
🤨
This article was written by ChatGPT3 and they didn’t even change the structure to hide it.
is there anything more liberal than avoiding engaging with the content of an article when criticizing
Bet he doesn’t trust ChatGPT to make calls on strategic errors.
I bet neither of you understand the difference between content and presentation. Using LLM to format the text doesn’t imply that the content is generated by the LLM as well.
Thank you for the insight about writing and AI. :)
Worse, the article was written by a Koch shill: https://www.macalester.edu/news/2022/04/professor-andrew-latham-receives-grant-koch-foundation-chinas-grand-strategy-a-history/
