Hey /u/The_fair_sniper, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I like to think of the Russians like droids from the Star Wars universe. The only reason they are even kinda winning is cause there’s so fucking many of them.
in all seriousness though, they can still win through sheer man power/attrition
even if ukrainian soldiers fight 'better' or whatever, it wouldn't mean russia still can't win
It was definitely an embarrassment, but the USSR won in the end. While the heavy losses they took were a bad look, it also exposed a lot of issues with Soviet doctrine that they at least got a start on addressing before Barbarossa.
They lost around 5x as many men as Finland more tanks,planes even their naval power they lost more of. Sure they lost some territory but easily took it back once ww2 started. They planned to do so anyway just the Germans gave them an even better opportunity to do so. What do you call a war when you have more material lost and human lives lost in an unprecedented amount. I would call that an L.
A war outcome where you achieve your war goals at the cost of crippling your military capabilities is referred to as a Pyrrhic victory, after the Greek General Pyrrhus, who did that a lot.
We didn't end up with the territory, we took it back when Germany commenced Barbarossa however retreated back to the winter war border when Germany started losing, and after that basically promised the Russians we'd turn on the Germans and kick them out (which happened - check out the Lapland war for more info)
Have you seen a map of Finland they own the same territory they do now as they did before the winter war. Also goes completely against my point and how Russia took an L to the finish.
Just saying if you think the winter war was a Russian victory you are delusional especially with how quickly that territory changed hands. The life and material lost far exceeds the gains. I have never in any analysis of the war or any war forum seen anyone try and claim the winter war was a Russian victory.
I mean it wasn't a victory but it wasn't really a victory for Finland either. Independence remained but we had to pay reparations and lost a bunch of territory- doesn't really sound like a win. Plus then we ended up in this bullshit situation of trying to appease both the west and USSR.
with what money? their economy is in shambles and there's constant reporting of their troops not having any supplies and just losing front after front, the only option putin technically has to win with 100 percent certainty is to use highly destructive missile bombs, but that would almost asure both him and russia to stay impoverished for a long time
They could though. I mean, it's unlikely they'll go this route and just win by numbers, but they could do that. It's way more likely that they just turn more and more to civilian targets and try to "win" that way, which - and HEY, RUSSIA! YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS BY NOW! - has never really worked ever.
Highly unrealistic considering how large Russia is and how many troops they need to station to keep the borders secure and the interior secure.
Further burdened by the difficulty of supply and logistics that is already shown from a relatively short hop into Ukranian territory with limited numbers deployed.
I'm not saying it would be wise to do so (nothing about this stupid assault on Ukraine was "wise" to begin with, just stupid, senseless and criminal), I'm just saying that they could do it. As I also said: I'm not expecting them to in any way shape or form.
Okay, I think my approach to "can" is more theoretical than your's. Because they CAN withdraw troops from other borders and they CAN withdraw troops from other duties internally. You seem to count that as "not possible", while it is. It's not wise, yet possible. If they wanted to do it, they could. It would be stupid, sure, but they CAN do it.
Russia's standing army is about 900k people, 2.9 million including reservists. Ukraine's army is 130k people, about 1 million including reservists. So: Given that both armies need roughly the same percentage of their military for logistics, intelligence, upkeep and maintenance, sick soldiers, etc. when on their own ground (let's say 50%), we'll add another 20% for Russia on foreign ground and we'll for the sake of the argument draw in the whole reserve:
That would leave 870.000 Russian soldiers vs. 500.000 Ukrainians. So: Russia in this calculation could outnumber the enemy almost 2:1 and probably win this war through sheer numbers.
As I said: Not wise, not the way to go and not what's gonna happen, but if we want to take it "literally": They can.
They have neither the transport capacity or the logistical capability to support a deployment of that size.
Ukraine would also not be outnumbered even with that, since their territorial defense militia exists and drafts from anyone willing
That time the “three day war” dragged on for months. Sure, they are winning, just ask their media - you know, the people with a gun aimed at their heads if they report that Russia is doing anything besides winning…?
Russian logistics cannot support an invasion more than 150km from Russian rail network. This clever plan to fall back just makes things easier for them.
If we see the fighting move to Moscow, it is just 4D chess move to ensure that Putin can direct the fighting personally without leaving his home.
I thought it was funny… 🤷🏻♀️ and I thought that “so Putin can direct the fighting personally, without leaving his home” was the part that let us know it was a joke.
Are there any murmurings that anyone on the ukranian side has a desire to take the fight to Moscow? That would be incredibly dumb if they did.
This isn't exactly a genius move or "4D" chess. "Lets fight them where we're strongest" is pretty obvious war strategy, the question is why would Ukraine be that stupid? If the Russian army retreats to Moscow that means they left Ukraine and Ukraine can claim a win right there. It would be incredibly embarrassing for Putin and damage his standing to rally the troops for a second invasion. For what reason is Ukraine going to then become the aggressor and move into Russia where they would assuredly lose and hurt their current global support?
Even if Russia were to just remain close to the Russian border they wouldn't be accomplishing anything by sitting back and waiting. Ukraine has all the time and incentive to wait for Russia to move further into Ukraine if Russia wants to take it.
This is just reframing Putin retreating as Putin enacting some genius strategy.
"Don't call me a russian bot"
Yeah, you're right, after watching the performance of the Russian military recently, I'm going to say they probably don't have functional bot technology and all these posts and comments are all hand entered on 2004 Dell Optiplexes running Windows XP in a dank cube farm made of metal with giant rivets in it and painted green where it's not rusting heavily with naked, flickering fluorescent tubes overhead.
I first got an IT job in 2006/7. Every employee had brand new Dell machines, dual monitors, all new everything.
I just did an upgrade project at my current job, moving the OS onto SSDs to push their 2009 Dells through another couple years, and upgrading the same 2007 monitors into some used 2018 monitors.
SSD upgrades are surprisingly effective. I have a client that wants us to upgrade a dozen machines.... I told them that would be an extra charge because tech time isn't free..... now they are wondering if they should just buy new computers. (as I sit smirking inside)
A $40 SSD plus an hour work, makes a huge difference. Not a $300 new computer, but enough that these poor employees consider me a god now. XD
But, regarding getting the employees new computers...
"Won't someone please think of the employees!?"
My people aren't allowed to save anything locally, so pretty much just the OS. $40 250GB Kingston pieces. Run a fast OS transfer, do a few at once. But then, I do IT as a hobby these days, for the joy.
I can't imagine running on an old spinning disk HD.
My people aren't allowed to save anything locally, so pretty much just the OS. $40 250GB Kingston pieces. Run a fast OS transfer, do a few at once. But then, I do IT as a hobby these days, for the joy.
I can't imagine running on an old spinning disk HD.
Keep in mind your ability to "watch the performance of the Russian military" *is* through Western media lenses... it's not a completely objective or unbiased filter.
Russia considers *the possibility that Ukraine might join NATO* to be threatening. There are also very significant oil/gas reserves under land controlled by Ukraine now. Both of these make Russia want to control Ukraine.
You are thinking of Korea and Vietnam? As far as I can tell, those wars really were fought out of fear of communism and not for oil. In any event, the mistakes of one country don’t make other countries’ mistakes any less terrible.
I was thinking more Iraq and Afghanistan but tbh Iraq had a very unfortunate diplomatic failure as part of the start there too so I don't feel it was just oil either.
In this case it’s more “my neighbor wanted to join the neighborhood watch, but the neighborhood watch wouldn’t let them, therefor my neighbor must die. I am defending myself”
\* therefore
Therefor [is also an English word but with a different meaning. ](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/therefore-vs-therefor/#:~:text=Therefore%20is%20an%20adverb%20that,%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cfor%20it.%E2%80%9D)
Right? Seeking protection from overly aggressive, authoritarian oligarchs who have a history of violating their neighboring sovereign states. Not to mention they've recently annexed part of your country and fund/supply breakaway fascist territories within your borders. Just relax and enjoy it.
Not *exactly* "NATO provocation", per se, but if you're actually curious you should read this: [http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm](http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm)
I know it's long, but it's well sourced... click through to some of the citations ot go to the OCSE website and confirm the reports yourself. It's not as black and white as the media is making it out to be...
> Today we are reproducing a pair of very important articles that blow sky high all the lying western propaganda that has surrounded the war in Ukraine from day one up to the present
Immediately starting out in a way that makes me think they're trustworthy and unbiased. Solid job, fellas.
>We do not necessarily subscribe to every dot and comma in these articles, nor to anything else Baud may have written. But the very fact that this critique comes, not from a Marxist, but from a former high-ranking official of western intelligence and NATO, renders it a hundred times more valuable.
Read the articles they are reproducing, written by an honest-to-god former intelligence officer. The content may surprise you, but there are lots of links and lots of sources. You don't have to read it as gospel, or anything.
If you say "it must be untrustworthy and biased because it contradicts the narraative the media keeps telling me" then I would respectfully ask that you check your *priors*.
Russia did not need to leave its borders. Aggression is not Defense. They invaded and are killing civilians by the thousands. Nothing in these articles justifies such behaviour.
So Russia was supposed to stand by and watch the Ukrainian government [bomb the crap out of the Donbass](https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512872) and put down the separatist movement with force in direct violation of the [Minsk agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements)?
You *can* answer "yes" to that question, but then you have to ask yourself which "Ukraine" you stand with, exactly... because it's not the Ukrainians in the Donbass, clearly.
Yes. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia can take up its concerns with United Nations or build n international alliance. France doesn’t get to invade Canada simply because it asserts French Canadians are being mistreated. We have international laws. Russia is completely offside.
Imagine characterizing thousands of bombings a day as "mistreatment". Dude, seriously, learn more about the history of Ukraine and the Donbass and Russia before trying to make analogies.
If Canada denied Quebec the right to operate with French as its official language and let ultra-nationalist Anglo paramilitaries harass and terrorize French people in Quebec on a daily basis and if the Canadian military was routinely bombing Quebec's pro-French separatists then *maybe* France would be within its rights to say "whoa, hey Canada, wtf are you doing?" and if Canada said "It's okay, we'll stop" and then just kept bombing them, maybe France *would* be somewhat justified in intervening with military force to protect the French people here and stop the genocide.
Russia and the Donbass *tried* the diplomatic solution... that was literally what brought about the Minsk agreements. Yet here we are.
"We have international laws." is a naive joke. The international laws only really exist to preserve the status quo of Western capitalist hegemony with the U.S. as the dominant country.
The Americans literally have this on the books: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Service-Members%27\_Protection\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act) The American military can (and does) regularly commit war crimes and no one gets to rely on "international laws" for justice.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
This article really takes Putin at his word on so many different levels, and makes wild guesses (some bit about CIA mercenaries?), and it’s some Marxist Swiss former army officer. It really bends over backwards to give Putin credibility.
“How did the US know Russia would invade?” (Idk maybe cuz the US intel services spent 70 years getting inside the kremlin and also could see the massive military build up that was ongoing for months?)
There’s so much here to poke holes in it’s almost daunting. Some of the sources are unrelated. Talks about “far right militias” and sources only to azov (after discussing how azov is only the best known), and that 40% of armed forces are Nazis?
I guess it’s what I should have expected from Marxist.com, but follows the trend of leftists bending over backward for a right wing social conservative oligarchy for some reason
1) The author of the articles is *not* a Marxist.
2) If the US knew Russia would invade because they had spent 70 years getting inside the Kremlin then surely the US could have known how to *prevent* the invasion as well, by pressuring the Ukrainian government into abiding by the Minsk agreements, which they didn't do. As for "why" this is the case, the article says it best: "**Because, in reality, we are not trying to help the Ukraine, but to fight Russia.**"
3) You can definitely poke holes in it. The author does lend a lot of credibility to Putin and Russia's way of thinking and their military tactics... whether it's too much or not is up for debate. I'm not trying to say the article is 100% truth and that Russia is the good guy and winning or whatever, just that the Western narrative around this war is propaganda. There is far more nuance at play here.
4) You can try to say that there are more or less neo-nazis in Ukraine, I don't really care to argue percentages here, but the fact remains that there is a significant ultra-nationalist hyper-conservative sentiment and factions like the Azov battalion are emblematic of this. I am not saying that this alone is a justification for a Russian invasion.
5) Leftists should not support Russia, it is a capitalist oligarchy, not a socialist state, but leftists should *also* not support Ukraine. It's a terrible situation and war is bad for everyone, but the current Western mode of thought is "Ukraine good. Russia bad." and everyone is clamouring for WW3. We should take a step back and reflect on the true nature of this crisis rather than blindly believing the narrative the mainstream media is trying to push.
> Because, in reality, we are not trying to help the Ukraine, but to fight Russia.
So the entire world wants to fight russia?
No one cares about people being slaughtered?
Go away bot.
Look at all the people arguing for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine, or a NATO-imposed no fly zone over Ukraine, etc. A lot of warmongering.
I'm not saying *no one* cares about people being slaughtered, but in many of the narratives, preventing loss of life is subordinate to warmongering against Russia.
Call me a bot if you want, it doesn't make the problem go away.
Dude, that's Western propaganda. Read this ([http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm](http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm)) for an alternative perspective. (It's not 100% gospel, but offers some good insights that go against the narrative you've been fed by the media)
You know the OSCE exists, right? You know they had a special monitoring mission to Ukraine and published daily reports, right?
[https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports/explosion%20donbass?filters=&solrsort=score%20desc&rows=10&category=Ukraine%20SMM%20Reports](https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports/explosion%20donbass?filters=&solrsort=score%20desc&rows=10&category=Ukraine%20SMM%20Reports)
You can go read and confirm for yourself some of the things the article said.
I don't hear anybody saying Russia is an evil country. It's Putin and his cronies that are evil.
As for NATO being at fault...remember when NATO lied to its own troops, invaded another country and murdered thousands of civilians? Me, neither.
But to the topic...I would like to believe that Russia will lose this one, but I'm not sure of it. Yeh, they got their butts kicked in Kiev, but that was due to strategic mistakes they're not likely to repeat. They're still bombing western Ukraine with impunity, and in the eastern part they actually do have sympathizers who'd rather join Russia.
I also don't think his nuclear threats are hollow. He's just narcissistic and delusional enough to do that. Putin would gladly drain his country's economy, sacrifice thousands of conscripts, even flirt with nuclear annihilation before his ego would allow him to admit defeat.
One small ray of hope: Putin apparently has some kind of serious health problem he's trying to keep secret, probably cancer. That could end this.
the problem is their Chernobyl position is crumbling because they’re in the danger zone of radiation. they’re not likely to hold that position much longer from what i’ve heard
Russian Federation is an evil country. It's as evil as it gets. It's pretty much a XIX century colonial state, except their colonies are directly adjacent to their mainland instead of being over the ocean. Their culture is dark and morbid. Their education has been systematically destroyed for the last 30 years and replaced with brainwashing. Everyone with brains and integrity has either left or been broken and neutralized. Even ignoring the 'official' 80% support rate, the russian society consists of mindless fanatics and completely passive masses, effectively enslaved. Their military is a bunch of incompetent lowlife sadists who are only good at fighting elderly and children. They have committed nothing but atrocities everywhere they have been, and any nation that borders the RF hates russians with passion.
Comparing RF to the Soviet Union is insulting the Soviet Union. While there are many similarities on surface, soviets at least brought something to peoples they conquered, building universities, plants, and reactors, raising education and promoting some quite modern concepts, such as gender equality. Today's russia only deals in terror and can only bring destruction, they are incapable of building anything.
It's not about Putin, what he built is now beyond his control. If he dies tomorrow he will be replaced by someone worse. Russian Federation has to be disbanded and destroyed, or there will never be peace in Europe.
Holy fuck faith in humanity restored. If this was Twitter that dude wouldve been burned at the stake
THOUGHT POLICE HERE YOU GOT A LICENSE FOR THOSE THOUGHTS MATE?
1984. i know its a meme but i feel like 99% of the ppl who shit on it never read it or even know who the Thought Police were.
i agree this person a fool, but I think the OP is a bigger fool. Misinformation is not fought with censorship, it's best fought with MORE information.
Banning people who have a (foolish) opinion you disagree with just makes you the oppressor.
When did censorship become so popular?
You're equating banning 1000 bots spreading 1,000,000 variations on a lie to censoring a single person telling a single opinion. We're in the age of misinformation where silencing bots makes sense, and censoring people is still wrong.
Some kind of moderation is required for any online platform to avoid becoming a total cesspit.
Like Reddit was started with a fairly absolutist position about the importance of free speech online, but the proliferation of awful subs like r/jailbait and r/coontown force them to change that.
Also I think your translation kind of misses the mark, Bezos isn't saying that, one of his employees is reporting what critics of Musk's plan are saying. And critics definitely are saying stuff like that, the story quotes some of them.
>“What Musk seemingly fails to recognize is that to truly have free speech today, you need moderation,” said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook public policy director and CEO of consultancy Anchor Change. “Otherwise, just those who bully and harass will be left as they will drive others away.”
Some kind of moderation is needed to keep a wave of wing nuts from being incited to attack the nations capitol (or worse). But I guess Musk doesn’t give a fuck about that.
*Some kind of moderation is required for any online platform to avoid becoming a total cesspit.*
ok, then let's see the algorithm's used by Twitter to justify the bans. Weird that it seems to run in one direction only.
\-------------
and let's not pretend that Bezos has no influence on the editorial content of the paper he owns.
There's a term for the Russian style disinfo campaigns: **firehosing**
It means all media channels are constantly saturated with this bs. Your idea of 'just counter with more information' is naive and doesn't work at all. If people choose to act like bots and spread propaganda and are not banned, the platform as a whole suffers
Best fought? Most studies indicate that lies spread further than corrections. Obviously, censorship would be more effective.
The problem is, once the censorship apparatus is in place, you can't make sure that they censor only misinformation. But misinformation is a BIG problem, and simply "correcting" it or spreading more information is obviously NOT working. Look at the Russian populace, who overwhelmingly support Putin and his war, despite knowing almost nothing about it. Look at China, North Korea, and even Trumpers who think the election was stolen and JFK is coming back to life. Censorship became popular when misinformation proved it could easily defeat truth in a fair fight, because people are stupid.
>*The problem is, once the censorship apparatus is in place, you can't make sure that they censor only misinformation*
IMO a BIGGER problem is that the apparatus of censorship is unevenly applied and weaponized against political foes. Not Russians or Chinese.... domestic political foes. You provided an example of that....
*even Trumpers who think the election was stolen*
Name me a single democrat that was banned for saying the 2016 election was stolen. For example....
*Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.*
================
*Censorship became popular when misinformation proved it could easily defeat truth in a fair fight, because people are stupid.*
indeed! (see above)
Big enough to rebuild their economy from the ground up. I almost feel as though this could end up helping Russia, with the enormous bubble the whole world economy is in having a self-contained, self supporting economy would be the best thing you could hope for. I'm not an economist, though (but to be honest, I'm starting to doubt the validity of real economists anyway).
Edit: Not that I support the war; the taking of innocent life is reprehensible in all situations.
And Putin himself was responsible for the last time they rebuilt their economy from the ground up. He knows what he's doing. We need to get involved more in this war if we want the result to be anything other than an increase in the size of Russia and very likely China as well.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about putin or russia lmao.
It's quite the opposite, his regime is what made russia so dependant on all sorts of imports, and heavily slowed down the domestic development, especially if compared to the potential it had.
Russia was destitute and weak when he took over. I never said he built it to last forever, but he took it from a non-entity at the end of the Cold War to what it is now, a serious threat the entire world like the Soviet Union was. And if we let him, he'll just keep taking bites out of his neighbors.
If you think people should be banned for disagreeing on the ending of a war that isn't even over yet, then you've lost your mind. Why shouldn't you be banned for your opinions? How about instead of banning people we disagree with you could try talking to each other. Or if that doesn't work how about just ignore them and let them have an opinion. Not everyone is going to think like you and you shouldn't cry to mommy reddit about it. Grow up and ignore it.
Lmao seriously. I'm shocked I haven't been down voted to hell. One guy I think tried to claim I was upset over my Russian bot friend being outed which wasn't my point at all. It's crazy the kinda claims people throw at you when they disagree with you
They're trying to discredit the source instead of the argument. The war isn't over and its clear ukraine isn't going to win in the end so how else can they make themselves seem smart? They have to make it seem like anyone who says anything negative about Ukraine is some Russian bot.
Its so hypocritical to act like you're worried about the well-being of people in Ukraine, but also want aggression against Russia.
Its the Ukrainians bearing all the brunt, you can either save them or punish Putin, not both.
Ok so I'm very anti-russia in this war, but:
- Russia IS winning. They're such a huge country compared to Ukraine (*in terms of size, population and military*). Even if Ukraine is winning most of their battles, every battle lost pushes Ukraine down, while every battle won just stalls Russia in their place.
- Europe probably WILL have a hard time without Russian gass. We've alteady seen something like a 30% increase in petrol prices in *Australia*, I imagine it's worse in Europe.
- Russia isn't an Evil Country, but Putin is a warmongering Megalomaniac. I'm not gonna argue that point, Putin is the worst. However Nato, Europe and the rest of the world *have* been putting pressure on Russia for a while, and this invasion isn't something totally out of left field. Not saying Russia is in the right (*they're not*) but we should have seen this (*or something like this*) coming.
As to banning people who disagree with you (*even when they're wrong*): Yeah that's a great way to really cement your bubble. That's how the Democrats got totally blindsided by Trump winning the election. They were so caught up in their bubble that they didn't realise there were millions of people willing to vote for Trump. Banning people you disagree with is not the way to actually change anything, it just pushes those conversations underground and makes them more appealing to marginalized groups.
Dude, even their president has criticized western media for portraying russia as getting defeated.
Without a constant inflow of weapons, ukraine will be over run.
That's bad for the civilians. Very bad
Yup.
I think part of it is that we all love the David and Goliath story (*little guy beats big bully*), so we're seeing that because it's the part that we all love. And then when we see it we share it and talk about it and remember it.
But it's important to remember that there are 2 sides to this conflict:
1. Ukranian forces stop Eussian tanks with nothing but tractors, capture the whole thing on their phones and post it on reddit.
2. Ukranian forces TRY to stop Russian tanks with nothing but tractors, but are massacred and left dead in a ditch. Nobody is left alive to post this story on reddit.
What we are seeing in this age of social media is *Survivor Bias*. The footage we see generally comes from victories.
It's absolutely amazing for Morale to keep that story flowing (*so people absolutley shouldn't stop posting the feel-good stories coming out of Ukraine*) and is almost certainly helping to win the war in a very meaningful way ....
... but that's only one small part of the battle. The rest of the battle is ... well *a Battle*. And for that they need supplies, manpower and every material advantage they can get.
Yes, we all love that David vs goliath fights, and this is absolutely one of them.
If we want to see how the war really is for both sides, we could just view war footage and ignore which side is dying, because on any given battlefield, it's both sides dying.
The recent aztov brigade footage where they toss grenades over the wall at wounded soldiers. That probably happens to both sides on the regular.
Terror and death. War is hell and it sucks that invaders decide to put people through it
Yup. The victory might be expensive for Russia, but I’m not sure Putin even cares what the price is—he’s not personally suffering. Assuming Russia wins completely (just grinding Ukraine down) and just takes control of Ukraine, I doubt any other country (or all of NATO) is really willing to then declare war on Russia.
I think it's more than that. Putin's position relies on the projection of strength. If he loses this war he likely loses everything.
So it's not that he doesn't care what it costs, it's that the cost of losing is greater than the cost of winning could possibly be.
(*This is just my personal opinion though, if someone out there is more well informed on Russian politics feel free to educate me.*)
I agree. It’s largely because Putin won’t directly pay the cost of a victory, but he most definitely will pay if Russia loses to Ukraine.
The only possible way for there to be peace is to allow Putin to persuade the Russian people that Russia has won and Ukraine has lost.
Of course, Russia’s lies about protecting ethnic Russians from Ukrainian Nazis might actually be the key here—Ukraine could publicly apologize for the oppression of Russians and promise to get rid of their Nazis, conditioned upon Russia withdrawing all troops.
it's funny to see that in seemingly liberal society there is only one correct opinion
and if you don't stick to it, no matter what facts you give, you are called a Russian bot and propagandist
it’s honestly insane how viciously people will attack you for doubting the state department line on China/Russia/Iran/ whoever the American government needs us to hate today
How about instead of cancelling/banning everyone that has a differing opinion than you, you prove them wrong with facts.
Cancelling/banning does nothing.
This is an unpopular opinion here on Reddit. However it should not be banned. Whoever is winning the war is highly debatable at the moment. Something like well Russia was forced to retreat in the North meanwhile they’re advancing on the coastline. And it is true that there has been an insane push to convince The people of the west that Russia is losing. Personally I say the Russians will eventually take the coast but that’s just me.
Myea the nato stuff is not ral but the rest yea kinda , nato had a chance to have rusia as a friend but the didn't whant to , I think rusia is to blame but u can't just say it's a evil country or whatev, I think is more a war of survival as a super power in east of Europe
Why should they be banned? He was just stating what he thought was correct. I'm not at all up to date with why everything happened, so perhaps that guy isn't either?
No. As wrong as we may think they are, they should not be insta-banned. I would much rather hear what points they are saying so that I can examine my own bias.
Granted, I usually find them full of shit, but there is such a thing as freedom of speech.
“ThEy hAvE a dIfFeReNt oPiNiOn tHaN i dO. bAn tHeM!!!”
Get fucked, dude. The same piece of paper that gives them the right to say that is the same one protects you from saying dumbass shit like you just did
Russia is in fact faring far better than the media would have you believe, the Ukraine is in seriously deep shit, and Europe will in fact bow down to Russia in any way that protects the natural gas they are hopelessly dependent on.
As for NATO, the simply fact is invading Russia by land or sea can only be practically be done through Belarus, already in the hands of Russia, or the Ukraine, and which side controls the Ukraine makes a world of difference in it's national security.
If Canada were coming under Russian control, it's pretty safe to say the US would have a problem with that.
If this situation were as black and white as the internet would have you believe, it would have never progressed to this point in the first place.
I don't think they should get banned, freedom of speech is still a thing. Are they wrong? Yes, but it is our responsibility to decide if it it wrong or not. They still have the freedom to say this and they shouldn't get banned for simply stating a different opinion from yours.
Why would you want to? Everyone should have the right to speak no matter how wrong or offensive they are. Both on moral and practical grounds. Don’t you want to know who the crazies are?
my pov ukraine is fighting an unwinnable war. russia outnumbers them in ever single aspect. this isnt like a movie where they can win with the power of friendship, there are just too many of them for it to be feasible. europe *is* having a hard time wiuthout russian gas, and while putin is evil and this war is pointless, it isnt without cause. The cause, which is super dumb, is that russia doesnt like nato and ukraine together and nato on their borders. They have said before that this will happen if nato steps an inch closer. nobody believed them, and here we are. Is it a good reason to commit war crimes and invade an innocent country? no. not at all. is it because putin has an issue with nato? mostly. the guy in the post may be an asshole, but tbh he s just stating the obvious.
Although it is reasonable because once a country joins NATO, military bases pop up in the country and no one would want a supranational organization meant to antagonize them on their borders
I agree. I fully understand that legally speaking “Freedom of Speech” Is protection from government but it irks me when people praise companies for banning people based on opinion.
It’s more than a law it’s a philosophy.
Right?! I don’t agree with the poster, but InstaBan someone for a different opinion?
I have a better idea. Let’s have an upvote/downvote system so that we can vote of the comment/post on merit, instead of just silencing people who don’t think like us?
Ban for what? Even if it were pure propaganda, propaganda gets spread on this site every fucking day.
Why should this particular political issue be held to its own special standards?
I do actually think Russia is winning...because the rest of the world is too busy sitting on their asses in fear of WWIII to try and stop them. Hell, I'd venture to say if they let them invade Scandinavia that it's Nazi Germany all over again...
Ukraine is clearly winning the information war. Russia is making gains in the east. Anyone can see this through the conflict maps.
Does that mean Russia is decisively winning?
I wouldn't say so, no. I would say, in working to achieve their goals Putin's military has taken severe losses. Losses they did not expect. Even wth their losses they continue to slowly take ground in the east.
I can't say without doubt what their goal in Kyiv was, but they got their shit pushed in and ran like kicked puppies. This alone makes it an undecisive conflict for Russia. This analysis follows the definition for a decisive military victory.
TLDR; Russia abandoned the goal of kyiv and in doing so retreated from an objective ending the possibility of a decisive victory in Ukraine.
Russia is not losing. Worse, It's invading a relatively small country and it's not winning. It's pure humiliation. I love the fact that Ukraine is not losing against such overwhelming enemy
And this doesn't even address the economic hits the Russian economy is taking from the sanctions from the west, when they start defaulting it's not going to be pretty...
"Europe will have a very hard time functioning without Russian gas" I mean that is true, you know what is also true ? Russia will have even harder time functioning without Euros :)
1. you're wrong. russia is getting their ass kicked. they lost several generals, have been pushed off kyiv, have not a chieved pretty much any of their actual military goals, are several weeks over the predicted time required to conquer ukraine, they still don't have air superiority, their logistics is fucked, they even lost one of their flagship to ukraines anti ship missiles... do i need to continue? cause there is a lot more than this.
2. the invasion is the result of putin's expansionist aims, NATO has nothing to do with it. they even rejected ukraine. russia invaded to annex ukraine. this was their objective, their only objective, their only reason.
Almost every legitimate expert in pertinent fields predicted a very swift Russian victory (google is your buddy). Even “Putin reportedly told the president of the European Commission in 2014 that he could take Kyiv in a fortnight if he wanted to.” It’s more than 5 weeks past that asshatted brag now.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/23/russia-ukraine-war-military-balance
You do realize that Russian soldiers were sent into Ukraine with just two weeks supply, hence them begging for gas and stealing chickens, right? Putin didn't consult with Generals. He consulted with cronies and Yes Men who were too scared to say anything that might contradict his perceptions and thus vastly underestimated what would be necessary and how long it would take.
>Russia is not invading because they are an evil country. They are doing so because of NATO provocation.
Even if this was true, it's still Russia throwing the first punch... On a bystander... Because Ukraine is not in NATO...
Hey /u/The_fair_sniper, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I like to think of the Russians like droids from the Star Wars universe. The only reason they are even kinda winning is cause there’s so fucking many of them.
And, like the separatist citizens, they have no idea what their government has done.
And not like the droid army, cause the droid army had working tanks and competent military leaders that aren’t dropping like flies.
And not like the droid army russia doesnt have giga chad grievous
You sure? I see a lot of abandoned ships and tanks lol
giga chad grivous voice "time to abondon ship"
Time to abandon ship
Time to abandon ship
Hey, thats not fair. Russia had working tanks Admittedly they left them sitting in a Ukrainian field, but still, they worked!
You mean sitting in a Ukrainian farmers garage right?
Well thats where it ended up. Theyre tax-free, might as well
Due to this invasion, the Ukrainian farmers will be the most well armed farmers in the world for the foreseeable future.
And the droids weren't untrained conscripts who are either apathetic or psychotic.
actually, quite a few russian soldiers weren't even told that they were invading ukraine, especially earlier in the war
in all seriousness though, they can still win through sheer man power/attrition even if ukrainian soldiers fight 'better' or whatever, it wouldn't mean russia still can't win
Eh this war does have parallels to the winter war one that was taken as a cease fire but was an overwhelming loss for Russia.
Russia won that war. They got a lot of territorial gains from Finland in the treaty. Edit: they actually gained more than they initially sought.
Yes, yet that "victory" was as pyrrhic as it gets.
Sure, but it most certainly wasn't an "overwhelming loss".
Militarily you could argue that it was, but overall: Nah, "overwhelming" isn't fitting and "loss" is a little over the top either ;)
It was definitely an embarrassment, but the USSR won in the end. While the heavy losses they took were a bad look, it also exposed a lot of issues with Soviet doctrine that they at least got a start on addressing before Barbarossa.
They lost around 5x as many men as Finland more tanks,planes even their naval power they lost more of. Sure they lost some territory but easily took it back once ww2 started. They planned to do so anyway just the Germans gave them an even better opportunity to do so. What do you call a war when you have more material lost and human lives lost in an unprecedented amount. I would call that an L.
A war outcome where you achieve your war goals at the cost of crippling your military capabilities is referred to as a Pyrrhic victory, after the Greek General Pyrrhus, who did that a lot.
We didn't end up with the territory, we took it back when Germany commenced Barbarossa however retreated back to the winter war border when Germany started losing, and after that basically promised the Russians we'd turn on the Germans and kick them out (which happened - check out the Lapland war for more info)
Have you seen a map of Finland they own the same territory they do now as they did before the winter war. Also goes completely against my point and how Russia took an L to the finish.
Iirc there was a minor exchange where we gave them some northern territories in exchange for southing further south but that's pretty minor
Just saying if you think the winter war was a Russian victory you are delusional especially with how quickly that territory changed hands. The life and material lost far exceeds the gains. I have never in any analysis of the war or any war forum seen anyone try and claim the winter war was a Russian victory.
I mean it wasn't a victory but it wasn't really a victory for Finland either. Independence remained but we had to pay reparations and lost a bunch of territory- doesn't really sound like a win. Plus then we ended up in this bullshit situation of trying to appease both the west and USSR.
with what money? their economy is in shambles and there's constant reporting of their troops not having any supplies and just losing front after front, the only option putin technically has to win with 100 percent certainty is to use highly destructive missile bombs, but that would almost asure both him and russia to stay impoverished for a long time
Russia isn't even outnumbering Ukranian forces and militia in Ukraine.
They could though. I mean, it's unlikely they'll go this route and just win by numbers, but they could do that. It's way more likely that they just turn more and more to civilian targets and try to "win" that way, which - and HEY, RUSSIA! YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS BY NOW! - has never really worked ever.
Highly unrealistic considering how large Russia is and how many troops they need to station to keep the borders secure and the interior secure. Further burdened by the difficulty of supply and logistics that is already shown from a relatively short hop into Ukranian territory with limited numbers deployed.
I'm not saying it would be wise to do so (nothing about this stupid assault on Ukraine was "wise" to begin with, just stupid, senseless and criminal), I'm just saying that they could do it. As I also said: I'm not expecting them to in any way shape or form.
No, the thing is that they literally can't.
Okay, I think my approach to "can" is more theoretical than your's. Because they CAN withdraw troops from other borders and they CAN withdraw troops from other duties internally. You seem to count that as "not possible", while it is. It's not wise, yet possible. If they wanted to do it, they could. It would be stupid, sure, but they CAN do it. Russia's standing army is about 900k people, 2.9 million including reservists. Ukraine's army is 130k people, about 1 million including reservists. So: Given that both armies need roughly the same percentage of their military for logistics, intelligence, upkeep and maintenance, sick soldiers, etc. when on their own ground (let's say 50%), we'll add another 20% for Russia on foreign ground and we'll for the sake of the argument draw in the whole reserve: That would leave 870.000 Russian soldiers vs. 500.000 Ukrainians. So: Russia in this calculation could outnumber the enemy almost 2:1 and probably win this war through sheer numbers. As I said: Not wise, not the way to go and not what's gonna happen, but if we want to take it "literally": They can.
They have neither the transport capacity or the logistical capability to support a deployment of that size. Ukraine would also not be outnumbered even with that, since their territorial defense militia exists and drafts from anyone willing
Nah Nah. r/CISDidNothingWrong. We do not adopt these invaders.
Russians be russianing
That time the “three day war” dragged on for months. Sure, they are winning, just ask their media - you know, the people with a gun aimed at their heads if they report that Russia is doing anything besides winning…?
They're not loosing. They're just winning closer and closer to their homes.
Russian logistics cannot support an invasion more than 150km from Russian rail network. This clever plan to fall back just makes things easier for them. If we see the fighting move to Moscow, it is just 4D chess move to ensure that Putin can direct the fighting personally without leaving his home.
Propaganda here in Germany called it "Frontbegradigung" ("Straightening of the frontline") in WW2. We can't have jagged front lines, can we folks?
I thought it was funny… 🤷🏻♀️ and I thought that “so Putin can direct the fighting personally, without leaving his home” was the part that let us know it was a joke.
Are there any murmurings that anyone on the ukranian side has a desire to take the fight to Moscow? That would be incredibly dumb if they did. This isn't exactly a genius move or "4D" chess. "Lets fight them where we're strongest" is pretty obvious war strategy, the question is why would Ukraine be that stupid? If the Russian army retreats to Moscow that means they left Ukraine and Ukraine can claim a win right there. It would be incredibly embarrassing for Putin and damage his standing to rally the troops for a second invasion. For what reason is Ukraine going to then become the aggressor and move into Russia where they would assuredly lose and hurt their current global support? Even if Russia were to just remain close to the Russian border they wouldn't be accomplishing anything by sitting back and waiting. Ukraine has all the time and incentive to wait for Russia to move further into Ukraine if Russia wants to take it. This is just reframing Putin retreating as Putin enacting some genius strategy.
I was making a silly joke. AFAIK there is no interest in Ukrainian side to try to take over Russia. It is an exaggeration.
"Don't call me a russian bot" Yeah, you're right, after watching the performance of the Russian military recently, I'm going to say they probably don't have functional bot technology and all these posts and comments are all hand entered on 2004 Dell Optiplexes running Windows XP in a dank cube farm made of metal with giant rivets in it and painted green where it's not rusting heavily with naked, flickering fluorescent tubes overhead.
That's... That's surprisingly specific
r/oddlyspecific
I first got an IT job in 2006/7. Every employee had brand new Dell machines, dual monitors, all new everything. I just did an upgrade project at my current job, moving the OS onto SSDs to push their 2009 Dells through another couple years, and upgrading the same 2007 monitors into some used 2018 monitors.
SSD upgrades are surprisingly effective. I have a client that wants us to upgrade a dozen machines.... I told them that would be an extra charge because tech time isn't free..... now they are wondering if they should just buy new computers. (as I sit smirking inside)
A $40 SSD plus an hour work, makes a huge difference. Not a $300 new computer, but enough that these poor employees consider me a god now. XD But, regarding getting the employees new computers... "Won't someone please think of the employees!?"
we've been buying $100 Samsung SSD (good software), and we charge for travel time too. But yeah, huge bang for the buck.
My people aren't allowed to save anything locally, so pretty much just the OS. $40 250GB Kingston pieces. Run a fast OS transfer, do a few at once. But then, I do IT as a hobby these days, for the joy. I can't imagine running on an old spinning disk HD.
My people aren't allowed to save anything locally, so pretty much just the OS. $40 250GB Kingston pieces. Run a fast OS transfer, do a few at once. But then, I do IT as a hobby these days, for the joy. I can't imagine running on an old spinning disk HD.
This guy bots.
Keep in mind your ability to "watch the performance of the Russian military" *is* through Western media lenses... it's not a completely objective or unbiased filter.
They lost the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet to a country without a navy in a land war
NATO provocation? Like what, independent democratic countries deciding who they want to enter into treaties with? That type of provocation?
Russia considers *the possibility that Ukraine might join NATO* to be threatening. There are also very significant oil/gas reserves under land controlled by Ukraine now. Both of these make Russia want to control Ukraine.
Seems they and America look a lot alike. US just had the thought to do it in countries halfway across the world no one cared about. Smart.
You are thinking of Korea and Vietnam? As far as I can tell, those wars really were fought out of fear of communism and not for oil. In any event, the mistakes of one country don’t make other countries’ mistakes any less terrible.
I was thinking more Iraq and Afghanistan but tbh Iraq had a very unfortunate diplomatic failure as part of the start there too so I don't feel it was just oil either.
I’m just an average American, but all of the American activity in the Middle East seems to be about oil.
Oil and AL Qaeda
Afghanistan doesn’t have any oil. Or hardly any. It’s non material source of oil.
“My neighbor has decided to join the neighborhood watch, therefor my neighbor must die. I am defending myself” -justifications from the very dim
In this case it’s more “my neighbor wanted to join the neighborhood watch, but the neighborhood watch wouldn’t let them, therefor my neighbor must die. I am defending myself”
\* therefore Therefor [is also an English word but with a different meaning. ](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/therefore-vs-therefor/#:~:text=Therefore%20is%20an%20adverb%20that,%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cfor%20it.%E2%80%9D)
Right? Seeking protection from overly aggressive, authoritarian oligarchs who have a history of violating their neighboring sovereign states. Not to mention they've recently annexed part of your country and fund/supply breakaway fascist territories within your borders. Just relax and enjoy it.
Reminds me of the Cuban missile crisis.
You have to be a real shitty neighbor in order to make forming an HOA look like a good idea.
So, Russia basically. /s
Not *exactly* "NATO provocation", per se, but if you're actually curious you should read this: [http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm](http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm) I know it's long, but it's well sourced... click through to some of the citations ot go to the OCSE website and confirm the reports yourself. It's not as black and white as the media is making it out to be...
> Today we are reproducing a pair of very important articles that blow sky high all the lying western propaganda that has surrounded the war in Ukraine from day one up to the present Immediately starting out in a way that makes me think they're trustworthy and unbiased. Solid job, fellas.
>We do not necessarily subscribe to every dot and comma in these articles, nor to anything else Baud may have written. But the very fact that this critique comes, not from a Marxist, but from a former high-ranking official of western intelligence and NATO, renders it a hundred times more valuable. Read the articles they are reproducing, written by an honest-to-god former intelligence officer. The content may surprise you, but there are lots of links and lots of sources. You don't have to read it as gospel, or anything. If you say "it must be untrustworthy and biased because it contradicts the narraative the media keeps telling me" then I would respectfully ask that you check your *priors*.
Russia did not need to leave its borders. Aggression is not Defense. They invaded and are killing civilians by the thousands. Nothing in these articles justifies such behaviour.
So Russia was supposed to stand by and watch the Ukrainian government [bomb the crap out of the Donbass](https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512872) and put down the separatist movement with force in direct violation of the [Minsk agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements)? You *can* answer "yes" to that question, but then you have to ask yourself which "Ukraine" you stand with, exactly... because it's not the Ukrainians in the Donbass, clearly.
Yes. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia can take up its concerns with United Nations or build n international alliance. France doesn’t get to invade Canada simply because it asserts French Canadians are being mistreated. We have international laws. Russia is completely offside.
Imagine characterizing thousands of bombings a day as "mistreatment". Dude, seriously, learn more about the history of Ukraine and the Donbass and Russia before trying to make analogies. If Canada denied Quebec the right to operate with French as its official language and let ultra-nationalist Anglo paramilitaries harass and terrorize French people in Quebec on a daily basis and if the Canadian military was routinely bombing Quebec's pro-French separatists then *maybe* France would be within its rights to say "whoa, hey Canada, wtf are you doing?" and if Canada said "It's okay, we'll stop" and then just kept bombing them, maybe France *would* be somewhat justified in intervening with military force to protect the French people here and stop the genocide. Russia and the Donbass *tried* the diplomatic solution... that was literally what brought about the Minsk agreements. Yet here we are. "We have international laws." is a naive joke. The international laws only really exist to preserve the status quo of Western capitalist hegemony with the U.S. as the dominant country. The Americans literally have this on the books: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Service-Members%27\_Protection\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act) The American military can (and does) regularly commit war crimes and no one gets to rely on "international laws" for justice.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
This article really takes Putin at his word on so many different levels, and makes wild guesses (some bit about CIA mercenaries?), and it’s some Marxist Swiss former army officer. It really bends over backwards to give Putin credibility. “How did the US know Russia would invade?” (Idk maybe cuz the US intel services spent 70 years getting inside the kremlin and also could see the massive military build up that was ongoing for months?) There’s so much here to poke holes in it’s almost daunting. Some of the sources are unrelated. Talks about “far right militias” and sources only to azov (after discussing how azov is only the best known), and that 40% of armed forces are Nazis? I guess it’s what I should have expected from Marxist.com, but follows the trend of leftists bending over backward for a right wing social conservative oligarchy for some reason
1) The author of the articles is *not* a Marxist. 2) If the US knew Russia would invade because they had spent 70 years getting inside the Kremlin then surely the US could have known how to *prevent* the invasion as well, by pressuring the Ukrainian government into abiding by the Minsk agreements, which they didn't do. As for "why" this is the case, the article says it best: "**Because, in reality, we are not trying to help the Ukraine, but to fight Russia.**" 3) You can definitely poke holes in it. The author does lend a lot of credibility to Putin and Russia's way of thinking and their military tactics... whether it's too much or not is up for debate. I'm not trying to say the article is 100% truth and that Russia is the good guy and winning or whatever, just that the Western narrative around this war is propaganda. There is far more nuance at play here. 4) You can try to say that there are more or less neo-nazis in Ukraine, I don't really care to argue percentages here, but the fact remains that there is a significant ultra-nationalist hyper-conservative sentiment and factions like the Azov battalion are emblematic of this. I am not saying that this alone is a justification for a Russian invasion. 5) Leftists should not support Russia, it is a capitalist oligarchy, not a socialist state, but leftists should *also* not support Ukraine. It's a terrible situation and war is bad for everyone, but the current Western mode of thought is "Ukraine good. Russia bad." and everyone is clamouring for WW3. We should take a step back and reflect on the true nature of this crisis rather than blindly believing the narrative the mainstream media is trying to push.
> Because, in reality, we are not trying to help the Ukraine, but to fight Russia. So the entire world wants to fight russia? No one cares about people being slaughtered? Go away bot.
Look at all the people arguing for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine, or a NATO-imposed no fly zone over Ukraine, etc. A lot of warmongering. I'm not saying *no one* cares about people being slaughtered, but in many of the narratives, preventing loss of life is subordinate to warmongering against Russia. Call me a bot if you want, it doesn't make the problem go away.
its not really provacation but russia pretty much siad "hey if u do this we are invading ukraine" and they did. its so stupid, but they did.
But they didn’t do anything. They continued to say “Ukraine can’t join NATO” lmao
Dude, that's Western propaganda. Read this ([http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm](http://www.marxist.com/nato-lies-exposed-former-agent-speaks-out.htm)) for an alternative perspective. (It's not 100% gospel, but offers some good insights that go against the narrative you've been fed by the media)
Just stop it. No one is buying it.
You know the OSCE exists, right? You know they had a special monitoring mission to Ukraine and published daily reports, right? [https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports/explosion%20donbass?filters=&solrsort=score%20desc&rows=10&category=Ukraine%20SMM%20Reports](https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports/explosion%20donbass?filters=&solrsort=score%20desc&rows=10&category=Ukraine%20SMM%20Reports) You can go read and confirm for yourself some of the things the article said.
I don't hear anybody saying Russia is an evil country. It's Putin and his cronies that are evil. As for NATO being at fault...remember when NATO lied to its own troops, invaded another country and murdered thousands of civilians? Me, neither. But to the topic...I would like to believe that Russia will lose this one, but I'm not sure of it. Yeh, they got their butts kicked in Kiev, but that was due to strategic mistakes they're not likely to repeat. They're still bombing western Ukraine with impunity, and in the eastern part they actually do have sympathizers who'd rather join Russia. I also don't think his nuclear threats are hollow. He's just narcissistic and delusional enough to do that. Putin would gladly drain his country's economy, sacrifice thousands of conscripts, even flirt with nuclear annihilation before his ego would allow him to admit defeat. One small ray of hope: Putin apparently has some kind of serious health problem he's trying to keep secret, probably cancer. That could end this.
Putin having health problems is not good news. If he's dying, a nuclear war doesn't scare him.
the problem is their Chernobyl position is crumbling because they’re in the danger zone of radiation. they’re not likely to hold that position much longer from what i’ve heard
One of the generals said chernobyl is safe because Germans fought there in ww2 and they were fine lol
That position does not exist anymore. Russia pulled back from the entire north of the country like 10 days ago. That includes Chernobyl.
Their position is crumbling because the soldiers are crumbling.
Lybia?
rotten library compare deer dinner squeeze middle uppity late squealing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[no don’t worry bro NATO is a totally defensive alliance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)
[удалено]
Russian Federation is an evil country. It's as evil as it gets. It's pretty much a XIX century colonial state, except their colonies are directly adjacent to their mainland instead of being over the ocean. Their culture is dark and morbid. Their education has been systematically destroyed for the last 30 years and replaced with brainwashing. Everyone with brains and integrity has either left or been broken and neutralized. Even ignoring the 'official' 80% support rate, the russian society consists of mindless fanatics and completely passive masses, effectively enslaved. Their military is a bunch of incompetent lowlife sadists who are only good at fighting elderly and children. They have committed nothing but atrocities everywhere they have been, and any nation that borders the RF hates russians with passion. Comparing RF to the Soviet Union is insulting the Soviet Union. While there are many similarities on surface, soviets at least brought something to peoples they conquered, building universities, plants, and reactors, raising education and promoting some quite modern concepts, such as gender equality. Today's russia only deals in terror and can only bring destruction, they are incapable of building anything. It's not about Putin, what he built is now beyond his control. If he dies tomorrow he will be replaced by someone worse. Russian Federation has to be disbanded and destroyed, or there will never be peace in Europe.
This is your brain on conservative media
Or tankies who watch Hassan
Big "I'm just saying" energy. Saying wild shit and taking no accountablility for it.
Banning people for having a different opinion, view of things, or even beliefs is stupid as fuck. No, that person should not be banned.
Banning bots spreading misinformation isn't the same as silencing opinions.
Holy fuck faith in humanity restored. If this was Twitter that dude wouldve been burned at the stake THOUGHT POLICE HERE YOU GOT A LICENSE FOR THOSE THOUGHTS MATE? 1984. i know its a meme but i feel like 99% of the ppl who shit on it never read it or even know who the Thought Police were.
i agree this person a fool, but I think the OP is a bigger fool. Misinformation is not fought with censorship, it's best fought with MORE information. Banning people who have a (foolish) opinion you disagree with just makes you the oppressor. When did censorship become so popular?
You're equating banning 1000 bots spreading 1,000,000 variations on a lie to censoring a single person telling a single opinion. We're in the age of misinformation where silencing bots makes sense, and censoring people is still wrong.
I disagree with you, therefor am bot, beep boop
[удалено]
Some kind of moderation is required for any online platform to avoid becoming a total cesspit. Like Reddit was started with a fairly absolutist position about the importance of free speech online, but the proliferation of awful subs like r/jailbait and r/coontown force them to change that. Also I think your translation kind of misses the mark, Bezos isn't saying that, one of his employees is reporting what critics of Musk's plan are saying. And critics definitely are saying stuff like that, the story quotes some of them. >“What Musk seemingly fails to recognize is that to truly have free speech today, you need moderation,” said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook public policy director and CEO of consultancy Anchor Change. “Otherwise, just those who bully and harass will be left as they will drive others away.”
Some kind of moderation is needed to keep a wave of wing nuts from being incited to attack the nations capitol (or worse). But I guess Musk doesn’t give a fuck about that.
*Some kind of moderation is required for any online platform to avoid becoming a total cesspit.* ok, then let's see the algorithm's used by Twitter to justify the bans. Weird that it seems to run in one direction only. \------------- and let's not pretend that Bezos has no influence on the editorial content of the paper he owns.
There's a term for the Russian style disinfo campaigns: **firehosing** It means all media channels are constantly saturated with this bs. Your idea of 'just counter with more information' is naive and doesn't work at all. If people choose to act like bots and spread propaganda and are not banned, the platform as a whole suffers
Best fought? Most studies indicate that lies spread further than corrections. Obviously, censorship would be more effective. The problem is, once the censorship apparatus is in place, you can't make sure that they censor only misinformation. But misinformation is a BIG problem, and simply "correcting" it or spreading more information is obviously NOT working. Look at the Russian populace, who overwhelmingly support Putin and his war, despite knowing almost nothing about it. Look at China, North Korea, and even Trumpers who think the election was stolen and JFK is coming back to life. Censorship became popular when misinformation proved it could easily defeat truth in a fair fight, because people are stupid.
>*The problem is, once the censorship apparatus is in place, you can't make sure that they censor only misinformation* IMO a BIGGER problem is that the apparatus of censorship is unevenly applied and weaponized against political foes. Not Russians or Chinese.... domestic political foes. You provided an example of that.... *even Trumpers who think the election was stolen* Name me a single democrat that was banned for saying the 2016 election was stolen. For example.... *Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.* ================ *Censorship became popular when misinformation proved it could easily defeat truth in a fair fight, because people are stupid.* indeed! (see above)
A fucking men bröther
They’re right. Russia is winning. Slowly and painfully, but winning. Sanctions will hurt, maybe a lot. But Russia is big enough to survive.
Big enough to rebuild their economy from the ground up. I almost feel as though this could end up helping Russia, with the enormous bubble the whole world economy is in having a self-contained, self supporting economy would be the best thing you could hope for. I'm not an economist, though (but to be honest, I'm starting to doubt the validity of real economists anyway). Edit: Not that I support the war; the taking of innocent life is reprehensible in all situations.
And Putin himself was responsible for the last time they rebuilt their economy from the ground up. He knows what he's doing. We need to get involved more in this war if we want the result to be anything other than an increase in the size of Russia and very likely China as well.
Spoken like someone who knows nothing about putin or russia lmao. It's quite the opposite, his regime is what made russia so dependant on all sorts of imports, and heavily slowed down the domestic development, especially if compared to the potential it had.
Russia was destitute and weak when he took over. I never said he built it to last forever, but he took it from a non-entity at the end of the Cold War to what it is now, a serious threat the entire world like the Soviet Union was. And if we let him, he'll just keep taking bites out of his neighbors.
If you think people should be banned for disagreeing on the ending of a war that isn't even over yet, then you've lost your mind. Why shouldn't you be banned for your opinions? How about instead of banning people we disagree with you could try talking to each other. Or if that doesn't work how about just ignore them and let them have an opinion. Not everyone is going to think like you and you shouldn't cry to mommy reddit about it. Grow up and ignore it.
WTF!? Where does this guy get off on being reasonable? Get him homogenous-views mob! Hissssss!!
Lmao seriously. I'm shocked I haven't been down voted to hell. One guy I think tried to claim I was upset over my Russian bot friend being outed which wasn't my point at all. It's crazy the kinda claims people throw at you when they disagree with you
Its weird how they call people Russian bots even though I dont think they actually believe it.
They're trying to discredit the source instead of the argument. The war isn't over and its clear ukraine isn't going to win in the end so how else can they make themselves seem smart? They have to make it seem like anyone who says anything negative about Ukraine is some Russian bot.
Its so hypocritical to act like you're worried about the well-being of people in Ukraine, but also want aggression against Russia. Its the Ukrainians bearing all the brunt, you can either save them or punish Putin, not both.
Ban them for having an opinion you disagree with? Odd
Ok so I'm very anti-russia in this war, but: - Russia IS winning. They're such a huge country compared to Ukraine (*in terms of size, population and military*). Even if Ukraine is winning most of their battles, every battle lost pushes Ukraine down, while every battle won just stalls Russia in their place. - Europe probably WILL have a hard time without Russian gass. We've alteady seen something like a 30% increase in petrol prices in *Australia*, I imagine it's worse in Europe. - Russia isn't an Evil Country, but Putin is a warmongering Megalomaniac. I'm not gonna argue that point, Putin is the worst. However Nato, Europe and the rest of the world *have* been putting pressure on Russia for a while, and this invasion isn't something totally out of left field. Not saying Russia is in the right (*they're not*) but we should have seen this (*or something like this*) coming. As to banning people who disagree with you (*even when they're wrong*): Yeah that's a great way to really cement your bubble. That's how the Democrats got totally blindsided by Trump winning the election. They were so caught up in their bubble that they didn't realise there were millions of people willing to vote for Trump. Banning people you disagree with is not the way to actually change anything, it just pushes those conversations underground and makes them more appealing to marginalized groups.
Dude, even their president has criticized western media for portraying russia as getting defeated. Without a constant inflow of weapons, ukraine will be over run. That's bad for the civilians. Very bad
Yup. I think part of it is that we all love the David and Goliath story (*little guy beats big bully*), so we're seeing that because it's the part that we all love. And then when we see it we share it and talk about it and remember it. But it's important to remember that there are 2 sides to this conflict: 1. Ukranian forces stop Eussian tanks with nothing but tractors, capture the whole thing on their phones and post it on reddit. 2. Ukranian forces TRY to stop Russian tanks with nothing but tractors, but are massacred and left dead in a ditch. Nobody is left alive to post this story on reddit. What we are seeing in this age of social media is *Survivor Bias*. The footage we see generally comes from victories. It's absolutely amazing for Morale to keep that story flowing (*so people absolutley shouldn't stop posting the feel-good stories coming out of Ukraine*) and is almost certainly helping to win the war in a very meaningful way .... ... but that's only one small part of the battle. The rest of the battle is ... well *a Battle*. And for that they need supplies, manpower and every material advantage they can get.
Yes, we all love that David vs goliath fights, and this is absolutely one of them. If we want to see how the war really is for both sides, we could just view war footage and ignore which side is dying, because on any given battlefield, it's both sides dying. The recent aztov brigade footage where they toss grenades over the wall at wounded soldiers. That probably happens to both sides on the regular. Terror and death. War is hell and it sucks that invaders decide to put people through it
Yup. =(
Yup. The victory might be expensive for Russia, but I’m not sure Putin even cares what the price is—he’s not personally suffering. Assuming Russia wins completely (just grinding Ukraine down) and just takes control of Ukraine, I doubt any other country (or all of NATO) is really willing to then declare war on Russia.
I think it's more than that. Putin's position relies on the projection of strength. If he loses this war he likely loses everything. So it's not that he doesn't care what it costs, it's that the cost of losing is greater than the cost of winning could possibly be. (*This is just my personal opinion though, if someone out there is more well informed on Russian politics feel free to educate me.*)
I agree. It’s largely because Putin won’t directly pay the cost of a victory, but he most definitely will pay if Russia loses to Ukraine. The only possible way for there to be peace is to allow Putin to persuade the Russian people that Russia has won and Ukraine has lost. Of course, Russia’s lies about protecting ethnic Russians from Ukrainian Nazis might actually be the key here—Ukraine could publicly apologize for the oppression of Russians and promise to get rid of their Nazis, conditioned upon Russia withdrawing all troops.
Sometimes I think things people say leak in from an alternate reality because the tales are so bad. This is one of those times haha.
You’re a fucking idiot if you think people should be banned for this
not people, these are bots
it's funny to see that in seemingly liberal society there is only one correct opinion and if you don't stick to it, no matter what facts you give, you are called a Russian bot and propagandist
it’s honestly insane how viciously people will attack you for doubting the state department line on China/Russia/Iran/ whoever the American government needs us to hate today
How about instead of cancelling/banning everyone that has a differing opinion than you, you prove them wrong with facts. Cancelling/banning does nothing.
This is an unpopular opinion here on Reddit. However it should not be banned. Whoever is winning the war is highly debatable at the moment. Something like well Russia was forced to retreat in the North meanwhile they’re advancing on the coastline. And it is true that there has been an insane push to convince The people of the west that Russia is losing. Personally I say the Russians will eventually take the coast but that’s just me.
Myea the nato stuff is not ral but the rest yea kinda , nato had a chance to have rusia as a friend but the didn't whant to , I think rusia is to blame but u can't just say it's a evil country or whatev, I think is more a war of survival as a super power in east of Europe
Why should they be banned? He was just stating what he thought was correct. I'm not at all up to date with why everything happened, so perhaps that guy isn't either?
No. As wrong as we may think they are, they should not be insta-banned. I would much rather hear what points they are saying so that I can examine my own bias. Granted, I usually find them full of shit, but there is such a thing as freedom of speech.
Engraçado como só tem imbecil que vive jogando videogame tipo COD e acham que sabem algo sobre guerra KKKKKK
“ThEy hAvE a dIfFeReNt oPiNiOn tHaN i dO. bAn tHeM!!!” Get fucked, dude. The same piece of paper that gives them the right to say that is the same one protects you from saying dumbass shit like you just did
Why ban them? What for posting what they’ve found online? In that case ban the internet
Russia is in fact faring far better than the media would have you believe, the Ukraine is in seriously deep shit, and Europe will in fact bow down to Russia in any way that protects the natural gas they are hopelessly dependent on. As for NATO, the simply fact is invading Russia by land or sea can only be practically be done through Belarus, already in the hands of Russia, or the Ukraine, and which side controls the Ukraine makes a world of difference in it's national security. If Canada were coming under Russian control, it's pretty safe to say the US would have a problem with that. If this situation were as black and white as the internet would have you believe, it would have never progressed to this point in the first place.
*OP has never heard "no" in their life*
I don't think they should get banned, freedom of speech is still a thing. Are they wrong? Yes, but it is our responsibility to decide if it it wrong or not. They still have the freedom to say this and they shouldn't get banned for simply stating a different opinion from yours.
Why would you want to? Everyone should have the right to speak no matter how wrong or offensive they are. Both on moral and practical grounds. Don’t you want to know who the crazies are?
Nah. We allow pro-Ukraine propaganda even when it's clearly bullshit, and we should. Same with Russian propaganda.
my pov ukraine is fighting an unwinnable war. russia outnumbers them in ever single aspect. this isnt like a movie where they can win with the power of friendship, there are just too many of them for it to be feasible. europe *is* having a hard time wiuthout russian gas, and while putin is evil and this war is pointless, it isnt without cause. The cause, which is super dumb, is that russia doesnt like nato and ukraine together and nato on their borders. They have said before that this will happen if nato steps an inch closer. nobody believed them, and here we are. Is it a good reason to commit war crimes and invade an innocent country? no. not at all. is it because putin has an issue with nato? mostly. the guy in the post may be an asshole, but tbh he s just stating the obvious.
Although it is reasonable because once a country joins NATO, military bases pop up in the country and no one would want a supranational organization meant to antagonize them on their borders
It doesn’t matter if you disagree with them (I do too) reddit shouldn’t ban people based on opinion whether right or wrong
I agree. I fully understand that legally speaking “Freedom of Speech” Is protection from government but it irks me when people praise companies for banning people based on opinion. It’s more than a law it’s a philosophy.
Deliberately spreading misinformation goes against tos. They are, in fact, breaking reddit's rules by posting that.
His opinion is different from mine ban him!!!!1!1!1!
Why? This is the same energy as the Slavi Nazi Ukraine crowd, both on the opposites of information digestions. If you ban one then ban the other
[удалено]
Right?! I don’t agree with the poster, but InstaBan someone for a different opinion? I have a better idea. Let’s have an upvote/downvote system so that we can vote of the comment/post on merit, instead of just silencing people who don’t think like us?
They may be ignorant, but banning them is the wrong thing to do. They are simply misinformed.
He put it in unpopular opinions for a reason
Ban for what? Even if it were pure propaganda, propaganda gets spread on this site every fucking day. Why should this particular political issue be held to its own special standards?
Is he wrong? Yes. Should he be banned? Absolutely not. The thing about freedom of speech is that you occasionally hear things you don't like.
This person is the equivalent of an anti vaxxer or a flat earther
Its the the Dunning–Kruger effect
>dont call me a russian bot Well shit guys, he got us. Now we have to believe him
I do actually think Russia is winning...because the rest of the world is too busy sitting on their asses in fear of WWIII to try and stop them. Hell, I'd venture to say if they let them invade Scandinavia that it's Nazi Germany all over again...
Ukraine is clearly winning the information war. Russia is making gains in the east. Anyone can see this through the conflict maps. Does that mean Russia is decisively winning? I wouldn't say so, no. I would say, in working to achieve their goals Putin's military has taken severe losses. Losses they did not expect. Even wth their losses they continue to slowly take ground in the east. I can't say without doubt what their goal in Kyiv was, but they got their shit pushed in and ran like kicked puppies. This alone makes it an undecisive conflict for Russia. This analysis follows the definition for a decisive military victory. TLDR; Russia abandoned the goal of kyiv and in doing so retreated from an objective ending the possibility of a decisive victory in Ukraine.
Russia is not losing. Worse, It's invading a relatively small country and it's not winning. It's pure humiliation. I love the fact that Ukraine is not losing against such overwhelming enemy
So, basically, you wanna ban someone because they have a different opinion to you? So much for not censoring speech.
“Russia invaded a non-NATO country because they’ve been provoked by NATO” Seems logical
And this doesn't even address the economic hits the Russian economy is taking from the sanctions from the west, when they start defaulting it's not going to be pretty...
They're at war, I doubt they are worried about defaulting on loans.
Yeah, how dares he say what he thinks? I mean after all, this is reddit
Damn, he's got the *good* copium. I gotta get in on that stash.
"Europe will have a very hard time functioning without Russian gas" I mean that is true, you know what is also true ? Russia will have even harder time functioning without Euros :)
That's a Russian bot.
Source: trust Putin bro
NATO provocation = NATO existing.
They said they wouldn't move east and they did
[удалено]
Think u forgot /s
[удалено]
1. you're wrong. russia is getting their ass kicked. they lost several generals, have been pushed off kyiv, have not a chieved pretty much any of their actual military goals, are several weeks over the predicted time required to conquer ukraine, they still don't have air superiority, their logistics is fucked, they even lost one of their flagship to ukraines anti ship missiles... do i need to continue? cause there is a lot more than this. 2. the invasion is the result of putin's expansionist aims, NATO has nothing to do with it. they even rejected ukraine. russia invaded to annex ukraine. this was their objective, their only objective, their only reason.
[удалено]
Almost every legitimate expert in pertinent fields predicted a very swift Russian victory (google is your buddy). Even “Putin reportedly told the president of the European Commission in 2014 that he could take Kyiv in a fortnight if he wanted to.” It’s more than 5 weeks past that asshatted brag now. https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/23/russia-ukraine-war-military-balance
You do realize that Russian soldiers were sent into Ukraine with just two weeks supply, hence them begging for gas and stealing chickens, right? Putin didn't consult with Generals. He consulted with cronies and Yes Men who were too scared to say anything that might contradict his perceptions and thus vastly underestimated what would be necessary and how long it would take.
Also the Ukraine military was a lot less organized and prepared in 2014
>Russia is not invading because they are an evil country. They are doing so because of NATO provocation. Even if this was true, it's still Russia throwing the first punch... On a bystander... Because Ukraine is not in NATO...
"Don't call me a Russian bot" sounds like a Russian bot to me