78
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
78 points (67.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49957 readers
452 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Let's look at this from another perspective.
Russia has completely failed it's "special military operation" in Ukraine and is bogged down in a war of attrition with a nation that is not in NATO.
NATO countries are supplying a trickle of arms to Ukraine, but without a single NATO boot on the ground, without a single aircraft carrier, Russia has been stopped in its tracks and has failed to complete the majority of it's military objectives, having even lost actual Russian territory to Ukrainian counter offensives.
Clearly Russia would not stand a chance if NATO decided to invade them.
So that begs the question, if you believe NATO wants to invade Russia, and it's clear Russia couldn't stop them, why haven't they?
Right away going to note that you are yet to explain what Russia should have done about NATO's aggression.
Not sure how this would be relevant even if it wasn't fiction.
Again, you should stop making claims without bothering to double-check them. You are woefully underequipped to make assumptions here.
Non-Ukrainian NATO troops have been involved, both in the form of mercenaries and de jure NATO military personnel, with some of the weapons that Ukraine has been using requiring the participation of NATO troops.
Not sure why you think that this is in any way relevant, but Russia has literally been winning more and more ground, with a very recent takeover of estimated more than 100 km^2 within 24 hours.
Your sources are outdated. Kursk has been liberated.
Either way, this shows that Russia's concerns about NATO are not unfounded, so you are now just contradicting your earlier implied claims that Russia should have just ignored NATO's activities.
This is basically an original German nazi talking point about Slavs being subhuman and standing no chance against Germany for some reason.
Either way, you are now claiming that Russia is right to be concerned about NATO's aggression, and that every polity that tries to join NATO should be fought against like the enemies of humanity that they are.
Again, you are quite literally working off of wrong assumptions that nobody who has been following the conflict holds.
There needs to be evidence of NATO aggression against Russia for me to actually try to defend it (which I wouldn't anyway)
So you believe western volunteers are mercenaries?
What would you call Russian prison battalions, kidnapped indian students and north Korean regulars?
Do you know how tiny 100km² is in comparison to the entire of Ukraine?
The reality of the war is a sparsely guarded Frontline across hundred of kms of empty land that frequently changes hands.
Ukraine also still holds land in Kursk according to current osint.
Going to note right away that you are yet to explain what Russia should have done according to you.
Also, going to again note the fact that you are weirdly concerned for the success of a literal nazi government that has banned opposition and does not hold elections (while talking about how democratic the relevant astroturfed movement was) and which wants to plunder the rest of the world together with the rest of NATO, than you are for the right of the rest of the world to defend itself against said plundering. You have even implied that Syria should not have defended itself against you, to boot.
NATO did a coup in Ukraine (not sure how you are going to deny this, as there is already evidence of the US picking and choosing who will get what position in the post-coup government, as well as bragging about spending billions on subjugating Ukraine), then the puppet regime in Ukraine attempted to bring NATO troops and weapons near the border with Russia's most populated areas.
When the most prolific invader in the world does that, that is an obvious act of aggression, especially when they also engage in terror attacks.
There is also the fact that NATO is, as I keep mentioning, the most prolific invader in the world that is engaging in at least one high-profile genocide and must be fought against (unless you also think that Germany and the rest of the Axis should have been allowed to complete the Holocaust and the Lebensraum and to not answer for their other acts of colonialism).
You can call the SS auxiliary troops whatever you want.
Not sure how the former are relevant, not sure why the latter are an issue, considering that they are not mercenaries and that they are/were on the right side of this conflict.
Source your claim about the 'kidnapped Indian students' somehow being involved.
Hahaha.
So, let's get this straight - you think that states engage in warfare until they lose all territory?
This argument is especially silly, considering that Kursk oblast is much smaller than 100 km^2, and is a much, much smaller part of Russia than 100 km^2 area is a part of Ukraine. And yet, you brought up Kursk as some sort of an argument for Russia losing.
Sure, if by 'frequently changes hands' you mean 'Ukraine is losing this territory and fails to retake it'.
5 m^2 of land? Haha.
How long has Putin been in power now?
Going to again note that so long as you do not produce an explanation for what Russia should have done, your claims have no basis.
Considering that you have been unable to do so, we can conclude that you do not have any actual problems with relevant actions taken by Russia.
This is further supported by the fact that you have been caught either lying or being confidently wrong basically every time you tried to assert anything.
For about as long as Merkel was in power in Germany which you are completely fine with.
Going to note that this question isn't relevant here, especially considering that you obviously do not judge Russia by the same standards that you apply to Ukraine and the rest of NATO.
Yes, Russia’s gamble to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table using a minimal amount of troops and minimal force failed, because the US & UK blocked it. So now it’s a slow, grinding war of attrition.
All signs point to Russia winning this war, yet somehow you’re framing it as them losing 🤷 Do you know what their objectives are?
No one in history has succeeded in taking Russia with an invasion force, not even before Russia had nuclear weapons, and now it has more of them than anyone else. Not Napoleon, not Hitler. It’s two-thirds larger than the next-largest country.
The NATO countries have de-industrialized themselves. They’re in no condition to invade Iran right now, never mind Russia. They don’t even have the industrial capacity to properly arm Ukraine. Russia meanwhile hasn’t de-industrialized nearly as much and isn’t running out of materiel.
I believe nothing of the sort. What the US wants is for Russia to be regime changed, Balkanized, and re-neocolonized. And they want it without needing to put any of their own boots on the ground. Ukraine is a pawn on the US’s “grand chessboard.” The US wanted this proxy war. Previously.