this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
146 points (83.5% liked)
news
23564 readers
673 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
fit for office
Who cares.
It's a weapon that Ukraine has, they're at war, it's not a nuke, it ethically doesn't matter whether they made it themselves or received it as a gift*, of course they're going to shoot it at a target in the country that destroyed their infrastructure and turned part of their countryside into a no-man's-land and is occupying places they lived just 3 years ago.
If you wanna get mad at American weapons being used overseas in illegal wars, there are plenty being dropped on defenseless people, out of Israeli aircraft, every single day.
The weapons require command and control by NATO personnel, and guidance by NATO satellites. NATO is actively participating in an attack on Russian soil, using Ukraine as a buffer. This is a massive deal for anyone that does not want to die in nuclear hellfire. Russia has responded to this escalation by unveiling a previously not known to exist Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon, in an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile called "Oreshnik", with Multiple Re-entry Vehicle and/or cluster warheads that can strike all of Europe, striking a weapons factory in Ukraine with this weapon yesterday. Again, this is a big deal for anyone that does not want to live in Posadas' version of the future.
The modern Holocaust the US government is committing in Gaza doesn't have anything to do with whether the Banderite neonazi regime they installed in Ukraine is bad.
Before this war kicked off properly they were regularly shelling and sending Nazi death squads after civilians, why would you not be mad at that? Why would you want them to be able to remotely bomb civilians in Russia?
Posting any Russia related news outside the news mega really brings out all the chauvinist shitheads on this site don’t it?
Don't you have a cave to crawl back to from last year or so, where you can celebrate bloodshed of civilians without contagion?
Talk about bad faith. whatever you need to tel yourself as you fail your revolutionary defeatism and fall into imperialist intrigue
It just falls into the rest of the umbrella of "war is war" to me. There's nothing wrong with a war being two-sided.
Ukrainians are already the victims of weapons like this. Russian authorities have already targeted apartment buildings and other civilian targets, including knocking out water and electricity for millions. Half or more of the Ukrainian people are going to be plunged into poverty for decades, because of geopolical forces they can't control.
Sure, defending the Donbass is good. But that doesn't make this a black-and-white conflict, and certainly doesn't mean 20 million people should suffer because the pro-peace candidate they supported (cf. Poroshenko) was twisted onto the warpath.
So your response is to support the actions of the imperialists? This is where you ultras always go fully off the rails. You get so wrapped up in your purity you somehow manage to spin it around to support the US again, what a coincidence
I'm not supporting the actions of the imperialists, I'm downplaying how important they are and how big of a deal should be made of them.
It would be foolish to believe that weapons transfer was not part of the calculation.
Social chauvinist
The reason this is a big deal is because Russia is the 3rd biggest military in the world, and Ukraine would not be able to strike Russian territory with long range missiles unless the USA intervened. This creates a potential casus belli between Russia and the USA and if Russia chooses to ignore it then it sets the conditions for additional escalation of the threat against Russian national security. It's not a moral issue.
If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.
(Yes, I know history didn't start in 2022. There is an undeniable discontinuous shift in the nature of the conflict at that point though.)
Russia has been fully aware of the dynamics of supply between Ukraine and the USA, all along. Nothing has changed besides rockets that can go somewhat farther. If it's not a nuke and not a military alliance, it doesn't draw more powers in, it just makes the war more costly.
When one does a special military operation on another country's undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.
States. Do. Not. Have. Rights. This should go without saying on this site. The actions of the gov't of Ukraine, or more relevantly of the United States in support of Ukraine, are justified only insofar as they are beneficial to actual human beings. Risking escalation here pretty clearly fails that criterion. The situation on the ground right now is that the front has been largely stagnant for 2 years, and the incoming US admin has little appetite for continuing the conflict. This is an opportunity for a negotiated end to the war, not a time to be blowing things up even further. This isn't "emancipating" Ukrainians, it's just extending death and destruction in a moment where there's a real path towards winding it down.
Sure, and if we're fortunate, the Russians have accepted that possibility and will get over it. On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country's undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?
I totally agree: it's disappointing and ill-advised, but not unprecedented.
If Ansar Allah shot a Russian-made missile at the US (or even at Camp Lemonnier) that would be funny and righteous.
You are ignoring that this is proxy war, and by so doing you are confusing the entire perspective.
If this was not a proxy war, Russia would invade Ukraine because Ukraine took unilateral action to threaten Russia's national security.
In such a situation, the USA would not be sending the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget to Ukraine. Russia would stop Ukraine from its unilateral action and the war would end.
Instead, we have the US acting through NATO acting through Ukraine threatening Russian national security. Russia attacks Ukraine not because of Ukraine's unilateral action but because of the actions of the USA through Ukraine as a proxy. This proxy war remains a proxy war so long as the USA does not act against Russia directly. If the USA acts against Russia directly it becomes a direct military conflict between Russia and the USA.
The USA is salami slicing this conflict, attempting to find the point at which it can no longer the escalate the threat to Russia without Russian retaliation.
Ukrainian emancipation was truncated by the right-wing color revolution that was managed by the USA. Russia's invasion has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty and everything to do with Ukraine being a proxy of the West.
The game of chicken was inherent since January 2022, arguably even before. Ukraine as a state outside of either regional defense treaty and situated in between both has pointed towards increasing involvement/meddling of the regional powers.
A war being in progress involving a country from one bloc is an opening for the other bloc to conduct indirect opposition. This was known from the start of the SMO, and arguably accounted for from the same time too.
A few missiles hitting a depot in Bryansk is not going to change the course of the war. If it was going to, you'd expect that the USA would have encouraged this to be done sooner. It hasn't broken any continuity woth the rest of the conflict, and isn't going to change much besides maybe a proportionally tiny amount more of destruction on the Russian side of the border. That was my point.
If you don't know the history of this game of chicken, then I don't know why you're in here trying to argue. This game of chicken has been ongoing since shortly after WW2.
After the dismantling of the USSR, this game of chicken is pretty clear cut - the USA has been marching a transnational nuclear military staffed and led by originally by Third Reich officers that has as one of its primary mandates the maintenance of fascist partisan groups throughout Europe to use against any leftist government and also against Russia and Russian regional hegemony.
The game of chicken has always been a proxy conflict and neither side has dared allow an advanced weapon to be used against the other side's sovereign territory.
The use of ATACMS against Russian territory is a net new escalation in this 80-year game of chicken. Will it change the course of the war is not the question. It is an incremental escalation of intent that either is appeased or is rebuffed. And Russia has demonstrated since 2014 that it has abandoned the 100% appeasement strategy.
As we all know, appeasement doesn't really work, so Russia now has a serious problem on their hands with ATACMS landing in their territory. It doesn't need to be tactically transformative for it to be a strategic watershed.
“Both the imperialists and anti-imperialists are bad! If you don’t like escalating imperialism then why do you support anti-imperialists??!”
I’m so tired of you western chauvinists in leftoid clothing
should've not killed civilians in Donbass
Donbass would've been better if Gorbashev and Yeltsin were hanged
also mf how does a separatist occupy their land? that doesn't make sense
Pretty bold to openly call for ethnic cleansing in the Donbass, Adolf
They would’ve been better off if the Nazi-led Ukraine coup hadn’t happened in 2014.
Ok
Absolutely contrary to my point- you can idi na hui.
That has the same energy as "they shouldn't have voted for Trump".
Collective punishment is bad but if it's going to happen, it's better for it to not be unilateral. Plus, it's unlikely that Ukraine uses the weapons on anything other than a strategically useful military target.
Ukronazi regime in fact uses every weapon they can, even the scarce and expensive missiles for terror attacks on civilians, and every future weapon they will get will be also used in the same way. Plenty of examples here and here.
Your dipshittery here is going off the charts
Yeah, agreed
Are you saying it would be better if multiple parties decided which groups should be collectively punished, or that it's better for Russian civilians to suffer collective punishment than for them not to because of collateral damage during the current war between Russia and Ukraine?
What would possibly make you feel this way?
I'm saying "Russia gets to strike Ukrainian targets but Ukraine doesn't get to strike Russian targets" is not only unfair but laughable. They're at war. They were escalated against first by a state actor.
Just because it's in alignment towards the wrong side of history doesn't mean we should revoke principles of international relations that deny special privileged status to any country.
There is ethically no further line being crossed by Ukraine in firing conventional missiles at Russia, when Russia has already fired hundreds of the same at Ukraine, regardless of whether or not the latter is construed as "defense". When the missiles are flying, the people launching them have no right to say "but we're off-limits".
Okay, yeah so you're saying that it's better if Ukrainian Nazis are able to target Russian civilians more easily.
That is an absolutely bad-faith argument.
In the post-2022 stage of the war, Ukraine are not the aggressors. A blanket categorization of Ukrainians as "nazis" is no better than a blanket categorization of Russians as "orcs". Sure, the state apparatus is vaguely aligned with NATO and the EU. That doesn't mean that Ukrainians aren't defending themselves now to some degree. The imposition of "we are invading and striking your country and you are not allowed to strike us back" is contradictory to the principles of multipolarity.
Afghanistan had the right to strike back at America. Iraq had the right to strike back at America. Ukraine has a qualified right to strike Russian military targets.
I don't think all Ukrainians are Nazis, but their government and military are Nazi aligned, have deliberately targeted civilians repeatedly and will absolutely use these missiles to continue doing that.
It's not better for them to be able to do so.
They also aren't "vaguely" NATO aligned, they're a NATO proxy.
There is a categorical and practical difference between trading or dispensing military aid versus having a military alliance with nukes involved. That difference is what has kept the war from spilling over for 2 years.
The "Nazis are the ones doing the aggression" line was fully accurate up until the country was attacked as a whole, instead of just the separatist-claimed areas. Instead of the Ukrainian far-right doing ethnic cleansing, it was everyone in Ukraine at war. And Russia was well aware of that: the entire SMO and its ramifications revolve around ducking under the bar that NATO was neither being attacked nor doing the attacking.
The Kursk incursion was not surprising, nor was it different in kind, nor was it a bridge too far, nor was it really consequential. Rocket strikes are the same way on all counts.
The proxy war is still fully a proxy war (much less direct than the Korean War was), and Ukraine still has no hope of winning.
What in the world is this pointless moralization of the conflict? The Russians have warned repeatedly that American weapons striking into Russia is a red line and they will retaliate, just like they warned that Ukraine joining nato is a red line and they retaliated for that.
Moralization is all liberals and ultras know how to do
They could say anything is a red line. They could say sanctions are a red line, they could say supplying Ukrainians with tanks is a red line. Ultimately they're going to be fine.
Deploying NATO-member troops into Ukraine to fight directly, or anything else that involves a direct conflict, is an act of war, because that is what is consequential. Arms dealing has been going on since before the SMO started, it's a difference of degree rather than category. Whining about it is a fuss over no substantial change, and over a type of weapon that is not new to the conflict.
The whole Ukraine war is happening because people in charge of NATO thought that Russia's stated red lines could be crossed over without concequence. And the American empire has already been dealt a fatal blow in retaliation, with American hegemony in active collapse.
The accelerationist part of me rejoices seeing how idiot westerners will lead us to WW3 and destroy themselves. The realist part of me is terrified of WW3. How conflicting these feelings are.
American global presence is still going to take decades to fully wane, unless the process is precipitated all at once in a widely encompassing outbreak of conflict. Beyond a horizon of 2 years into the future, I'm not sure which I prefer either.
@infuziSporg@hexbear.net @TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net
Fyi you two have both reported each other recently. I don't have the energy to sift through your threads and come up with some judgement of who is right or wrong, but I welcome others to do so.
In the meantime, take the fact that both of you are reporting one another as a sign to disengage.
I'm eager to hear what rule or part of the CoC I was being reported for, or whether it was just for wrongthink.
In full disclosure I asserted that a blanket categorization of Ukrainians as Nazis was racist.
I hope you get banned for wrongthink wrongthinker
I’ll give you a hint, it’s the pro-imperialist ultra who is wrong and the anti-imperialist commie who is right
Ukraine isn’t using it, American personnel are. This is America shooting missiles directly at Russia, qualitatively changing the conflict from a proxy war to a direct war.
Copying this out because you're known to move the goalposts and ignore anytime it gets pointed out.
Ukrainian military personnel are not firing the missiles? American personnel deployed in Ukraine are? Or are American personnel firing the rockets from a NATO base? Either way, you're saying that the article and its details are a total fabrication- no "authorization" would need to be given to Ukraine if it were American personnel firing the rockets.
Yes American personnel are the only ones who can operate this technology. It is Joe Biden pushing the button to launch a close range missile strike into Russia. Sorry you love imperialists so much you refuse to accurately describe them, but that’s a you problem.
NATO personnel are also operating Patriot SAMs and other NATO equipment throughout Ukraine. If you doubt this you are beyond naive
Porque no los dos?
Porque no cambiará casi nada en la guerra en Ucraina, el pueblo ruso ya puede defenderse, no creo que las fuerzas rusas tienen el derecho único u especial para lanzar bombas hacia ciudades y bases ucrainas.