1470
War never changes
(lemmy.world)
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 03 Oct 2024
1470 points (98.5% liked)
Comic Strips
12568 readers
1219 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don’t really understand this seemingly widespread notion - that is also represented in this comic - that nations “agree” to go to war.
That is not really how it works most of the time, there is usually an aggressor and a victim. It is usually not two powerful leaders butchering their own country’s population, but rather one powerful leader butchering two countries’ population.
I know it’s not the point of this comic, but this really, really annoys me.
I think WW1 was kind of like the comic. It was a bunch of squabbling family members who got into a pissing match and then sent their citizens to die. It never would have happened if Gramma Vicky had still been alive!
Sure, but this comic wasn’t made 100 years ago. It reeks of that “they should BOTH stop fighting!” rhetoric, that only benefits aggressors.
The world used to be more like the comic. Now it's more unilateral.
But the one important detail never changes.
It's a pretty stupid comic actually. The conversation usually goes more along the lines of one nation demanding territory from the other, and the other telling the first to fuck right off.
I in general agree with what you wrote, but the Israel/Iran brinkmanship does feel a bit like the portrayal in this comic at times. So the comic seems relevant to recent events.
Oh yes, the Middle East is pretty much the reason for my “usually”s and “mostly”s there.
Could someone bring me up to speed on the Middle East? Are they not getting along over there?
You could say that - they have been up to a few squabbles as of late, kerfuffles even.
I am sure it is nothing too serious, it will be over as quickly as it started and the region will soon be as peaceful as always.
Ironically, the modern Middle East is almost entirely a creation of WWI and its immediate aftermath when the Ottoman Empire was carved up by the victorious Allies.
Don't forget proxy wars and subterfuge. It's much easier to gain influence through "soft" power than through brutal invasion and occupation, but this "soft" power can still result in tremendous bloodshed, like instigated coups.
I think your premise is wrong. It's more plausible that because war is beneficial for the 1 percent, that this song and dance of political theater is purely to keep you and I entertained and in line.
Or we could go with your idea that Putin thought it was a good idea to piss off the most powerful nations because he wanted to conquer some land. He was like A) I could peacefully hang out on my massive yacht or B) become enemies with a country that is notorious for stealth drone strikes.
War is beneficial for the 1% and there is no doubt about it. That doesn’t change anything that I wrote, and it’s not at all incompatible with Putin being an aggressor and a stupid asshat.
As someone put it: dictatorship is a job with amazing benefits, but a terrible retirement plan. Putin can never retire and chill on his yacht, he needed to be at war for his regime security.
He never meant to piss off the most powerful bloc in the world, he thought he could just snatch Ukraine and get away with it with a little frown from the west, like he did with parts of it before (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk), like he did with Georgia (South Ossetia, Abkhazia). He miscalculated Ukraine’s response, and the west’s.
He is not the first dictator who believes his own bullshit about the rest of the world you know? Do you think Hitler wanted to go to total war with UK, France, USA and USSR all at once? Or do you think he was secretly in cahoots with Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin to have a nice little war together to enrich their 1% and historians are conspiring to hide this?
Hey thanks for the reply, but I don't understand how you can attest to Putins intent. Does he confide in you? Do you read his blog?
There is just no way that this war is one sided. Didn't US/Nato provoke Russia by moving resources into Ukraine, breaking the minck agreements? I don't know if that's true, but thats way more plausible than it's just big bad Putin. He's the villian. Case closed.
I honestly don't KNOW anything for certain. History was written by the victor. Propaganda is everywhere. I just find it annoying when people claim to KNOW something because they watch the news or read history books. Were you there?
Can you one hundred percent positively say Putin is NOT just trying to defend his nation from this US/Nato proxy war? Don't lie to me.
(I don't necessarily think Putin is a good person, I just don't think he's the only bad one.)
I do appreciate you taking the time to set me straight. Not sarcasm.
Mate, I don’t have the resources to answer to all that. If after two and a half years of war you still believe the “nato provoked Putin” bullshit I don’t know what to tell you.
I cannot read Putin’s mind but I have read and listened to a plethora of explanations for the current state of affairs, from multiple POVs and to varying degrees of depth. Some of them make more sense, some of them less. The explanations you are bringing up (nato provoked, breach of minsk, defensive war, etc etc) are among those that makes the least sense under a bit of scrutiny.
I don’t want to have this debate under a fucking comic thread so I’ll disengage. I’ll just say that just because people you don’t like (government? newspapers? I don’t know) say something it doesn’t mean it is AUTOMATICALLY false and any other explanation is preferable. I know it’s boring, but maybe, just maybe, they are onto something once in a while.
Don’t trust them if you don’t want to, do your own research - but do it for real, not like the antivaxers. Maybe that propaganda bullshit you find more reasonable will appear for what it is.
That is indeed how it works most of the time