So, before I get started, I just want to firmly lay out my own personal support for Ukraine. I've been banned from lemmy.ml communities before just for saying Slava Ukraini. I do my utmost to assist the Ukrainian cause, from cheering their victories to talking to other Americans about the importance of the war there. I've picked my side, on purpose, and I'm at peace with it.
That said, I can't help but notice a slow shift in the tone of Russo-Ukrainian War information spaces that severely disturbs me.
The liberal west is based around a set of values. Freedom, mainly, that's the "liberty" at the heart of "liberal". Unless it's hurting someone else, everyone should, as much as we can manage, be free to do as they wish. This leads us to do things in a certain way, and it's "that way" that we use to look for and identify our friends.
Many people over the decades have tried to drag us down, paint us out to be just as bad as everyone else. While we certainly make mistakes, I think you have to look no further than our domestic strife and what each side is fighting for, to see that this love of freedom and life is still strong. Free speech, very important. Freedom to be gay, also very important. Liberty, freedom. Do as you wish, and leave other people that same freedom.
So, what I've been seeing that disturbs me so, is a slow shift in the tone of pro-Ukrainian voices towards a greater hopelessness and despair. A larger amount of censorship and banning here on Lemmy, but also in other places. A greater emphasis on the fear and violence of war, which is replacing and supplanting the admirable courage and hope that was so powerful in the initial days of the war.
I hate to say this, but it's starting to look from an outside perspective that ... maybe we were wrong, maybe the Ukrainians are not actually all that different from the Russians.
I personally refuse to believe this. I think the trials and horrors of war are simply wearing them down, and that's why I'm making this post.
I hope everyone remembers, we live in a hard reality, combating not just Russian influence, but our own domestic problems trying to turn us into another Russia. We cannot allow this to happen, and the first line of defense against it is found in our own courage, our own heart.
I would remind everyone that the most effective weapon the Russians have is their information warfare, that splits us from our countrymen and allies in good old fashioned divide-and-conquer. They can pretend to be us, they are smart enough to do this, and they can cleverly wreck our morale from within. We must fight this. What fights it is courage and freedom, two things that build morale in others, instead of tearing it down.
To quote a famous American: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." Those are the options Patrick Henry considered. "Just do what it takes to survive." is not listed. This is the American heart, so strong it even gets turned against us in the form of domestic, American terrorism--Americans killing Americans. It's not perfect and it's not pretty. And, if anyone wants to join us from authoritarian control, they'll find that blood and suffering is involved to get to it, and does not disappear once you arrive. The rewards, though, of having a non-totalitarian ruler, are worth it.
Keep the faith my friends, long, gruelling wars with setbacks can still be won. We can someday see peace and freedom, it is possible. Just not for all Ukrainians. This is actual hard reality, accepting the unfairness of the world, and dying for it anyway.
Personally, I was losing hope myself, about 2 years ago. One single man actually turned that around for me. Zelensky, and his courage, and the powerful Ukrainian heart he seemed to awaken. Don't let the Russians drag his name through the mud, he doesn't deserve it. Don't let other Ukrainians act like orcs, they can do better. We must not be like the Russians, otherwise we deserve no better than the lives they get.
Slava Ukraini.
Overall bloodlust, threats issued against NATO to try to budge the Polish and Slovakian trucker blockades, and an overall willingness to try to employ fear to achieve goals.
It's starting grassroots, and I'm worried it's going to start influencing our leaders. I'm fairly confident Russians are sparking it wherever they can.
edit: The Polish trucker blockade, incidentally, is a critical problem. It can only be solved by Polish people though. With a little political work and organization, perhaps a bunch of young, angry Polish guys that don't like Russia could go start a gigantic fistfight down there, get the whole lot of everyone hauled off to jail. This would clear the roads.
What bloodlust? Are you surprised that we(Ukrainians) are happy when invaders die?
Ukraine threatened NATO? I haven't heard of that.
How does Ukraine employ fear?
In your post you're stating yourself that russians are trying to "divide and conquer", yet you are still influenced by them.
We are trying to survive here while lacking ammunition, tanks, people, EW, AA, etc. Stop victim blaming.
See, this to me sounds like a Russian message masquerading as a Ukrainian messenger. I see no victim blaming, I was issuing a warning for the future, not saying anything is Ukrainian fault.
Ukraine is not lacking people, also. They have more than enough to fill all mobilization requirements for their force buildup. It is only weapons they lack. So why attack the people who are giving the weapons?
How? I'm russian now, because I'm not happy when you're basically calling me russian? You can check my profile to see how much I'm pushing russian message.
You're saying that Ukrainians are just like russians because of the threats, bloodlust, employing fear. Your "warning for the future" seems to be "Ukrainians are just the same, maybe we shouldn't care about them as much as we do".
When did Ukraine threaten NATO? I just searched, and found nothing.
Ukraine is lacking people. There isn't enough people joining army, which is currently a problem. Mobilisation isn't going that great either to be fair.
So, it's not Ukraine that is attacking NATO, it is people in grassroots spaces. We Americans use the word "grassroots" to describe the way ideas spread from person to person, through things like gossip. It is a very powerful force in our politics, that we carefully watch. It helps determine how people may vote. Note, I said I think it's Russians sparking it, but it's becoming more common in pro-Ukrainian information spaces. Youtube, here, reddit are the places I've started to see it. I think it should be stopped early. If you scroll through the comments sections of the other big Russo-Ukrainian Lemmy community, you'll probably see what I mean though. I was actually banned there today for asking for a rules clarification, as no rules are posted for the community specifically, which is what got me thinking about all this information war stuff.
Regarding recruits, Ukraine is under martial law. Volunteers will be insufficient to combat an army as large as Russia's, so conscription will be necessary. I have seen no indications anywhere that insufficient people are available, though, no reporting that such-and-such unit could not be raised due to lack of people. Training sometimes, equipment sometimes yes, but not people.
Note, I did not say Ukrainians are just like Russians. I said "don't be". My message is not "Ukraine bad". It is "I'm worried about my friends." The difference is very important.
I don't actually think you are Russian, I said what I did mainly because you attacked me, when I did not attack Ukraine. I described how things are starting to appear to an outside observer. This helps Ukraine, by allowing them to fix a danger early, before it causes harm. I do not actually think you are Russian, but if we are both pro-Ukrainian, then us fighting only helps them.
Please try to pay attention to my details. The specifics of what I am trying to say are very important. This is not a simple thing that is simple to understand. It's us defending against information warfare.
Slava Ukraini. I am on your side, if you are on Ukraine's side. I can still say hurtful things about my friends though, if I think it's important enough. Which I do. Our own politics are an absolute clusterfuck, and we need your help too.
Not you specifically, but Ukraine's help. To keep that nobility that people admire and will make sacrifices of their own for.
People in grassroots don't represent Ukraine. Some of them might say something stupid, some of them might be russians spreading misinformation. This shouldn't lead you to thinking "Ukrainians might not be that different from russians".
I am offended by your comparison of Ukrainians to russians. I'm sure if you were a Pole during WWII you wouldn't like being compared to nazis either. You have attacked Ukraine by your accusations of bloodlust, threats and willingness to employ fear. Ukraine can't fix what random people are saying on the internet. I'm not fighting against you, I'm fighting against your wording, because it does seem like you are accusing Ukraine.
Most of us are extremely thankful to everything US is doing. Yes, we're also worried and paying attention to everything that happens in the US politics too.
There is an ongoing conscription/mobilisation, but it is insufficient as far as I know. I don't expect you to know about every problem that we currently have. I'm following the war very closely, and spend hours every day watching/reading/listening about everything that's going on. Lately a lot of military people talk about the lack of personnel in the interviews and on podcasts.
I agree that we shouldn't fight since we are on the same side, but we shouldn't accuse each other of something that we haven't done either. Ukrainian internet is full of russians/pro-ru trying to sow dissent, and we're living with that for past 10 years. I don't really know if there is a good way to fight against it. Currently it's important to learn how to recognize it.
I do understand that I could have worded that in a better way, I apologize for my sloppiness and the offense it caused.
For the record, it is because Ukraine and Russia are different that I support Ukraine. I am merely afraid myself, of that changing under the bloody horror of war. Bloody horror is what made Russians into Russians in the first place, and it could even happen to us Americans.
If you think this is something the West doesn't have in wartime, you're too young to remember the last time we got into a war.
What threats?
... would you prefer they use comfort and therapy to achieve goals?
I would prefer they use the most effective tools. If those are comfort and therapy, then yes. It's better to be smart than strong.
Regarding threats to NATO, do you really need me to go find some in pro-Ukrainian social media and link them? I kinda figured people would know what I was talking about.
If the west does something shitty, does that make it good or something? We attacked Afghanistan like a bunch of morons, America did that, doesn't make it good. Doesn't mean we can't say it was dumb.
Okay, well, I think that telling Russians not to be scared, that they're going to be okay in the occupied territories and producing weapons to genocide Ukrainians is probably not the most effective tool, so they're probably going to keep using fear.
Legitimately, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about here. I'm a NAFO troublemaker so I see some... troubled expressions, but threats towards NATO is one I haven't seen in the wild.
Okay, but it sure as shit means that Ukraine's attitude at wartime is in no way at odds with the 'liberal West', since it's the attitude we use as well. Almost like that's the general attitude in wars where the polity is threatened.
Also, attacking Afghanistan wasn't dumb, and I'm not sure why you think it was.
Attacking Afghanistan was absolutely dumb. We did not need a full scale military operation just to get Bin Laden, in time. Look at where we are, Taliban is back in control, terrorists are still being groomed. We just had a knee-jerk reaction, not too different from the Israelis right now.
Fine, I'll go find some evidence, that's a legit request.
Yeah, they might. That doesn't make it effective though, and it comes with a cost that I am trying to explain. If you think the benefits are worth that cost, fine, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. We in the west are not in this war, that's just harsh reality, and I'm sorry. But it makes our standards different.
Uh, one, I'm curious as to how you think we should have been searching Afghanistan while it was controlled by a deeply hostile regime, and two, I'm curious as to how you think the initial invasion of Afghanistan went.
Yeah, that has a lot more to do with the Iraq War than "Afghanistan was a bad move". In early '03 the Taliban was almost completely destroyed, and the situation was stabilizing.
Yeah, no, we weren't indiscriminately bombing Afghans in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
... does it make our standards different? I feel like you're applying your standards for warfare to the West as a whole.
I am applying my standards to the west as a whole. We can do this, as free citizens of the west. The standards themselves change to whatever we, as a whole, want them to be. We have this power by design. I was, however, careful to express how the views I was putting forward are not uniquely mine, and couched in our country's history.
Intelligence work, is how we usually find the people we want dead. Not larger scale attacks to make the investigation quicker. It was a job for the CIA, not the DoD.
We killed our fair share of innocents. I agree we kept ourselves to a much higher standard though. But it doesn't really matter to the people who lost their loved ones.
Okay, but then it's not Ukraine being at odds with Western standards, it's Ukraine being at odds with your standards.
Uh, we can attempt to change the standards of our society, but 'attempt' =/= 'success', and certainly not instant success. If you're saying someone is at odds with Western standards, that means Western standards as they are, not as you wish them to be.
Intelligence work led us to Afghanistan. Do you know how much of the initial ground work in Afghanistan was done by special forces and intelligence agencies?
You can say that about literally any war.
You very cleverly quoted around where I said I linked my own opinions with ones rooted in our country's history.
If you want to duke this out just to fight I'm not particularly interested. I'm more about getting to the bottom of things. You don't think the CIA could have gotten him or something?
Because it's not relevant. I can hold any opinion and point to our country's history to back it. It doesn't change the fundamental problem that you're speaking of your standards, and not the standards held by the society you're discussing.
I think you really don't understand the difficulty of 'catching' and extracting someone in a hostile country, or how the CIA usually operates (hint - it's usually with considerable US military backup).
I think if it was that easy, we'd live in a much easier-to-deal-with world.
So, if the opinion was held by me, and rooted back in our history, are you sure it's just me? Seems like a lot of people share my opinion, honestly, and even consider it worth fighting for. Were we trying to make our enemies afraid during the GWOT or was it hearts and minds?
To the contrary, we have quite a lot of CIA work through our history, lot of it unclassified now. They do frequently work with groups like Green Berets, I admit, who are particularly qualified for things like training militants. But no, they don't usually require heavy military backup To the contrary, that makes it harder to hide. Once they found him, then we drop a JDAM on his head.
Our world really isn't that bad, depending on what you compare it to. We resolve quite a few problems, even if the media prefers not to focus on that.
I'm sure that the view that a country at war shouldn't be making its enemies afraid is not a mainstream opinion in the West, and certainly can't be said to be a position of the West which Ukraine is at odds with.
Both. Don't you remember 'Shock and Awe'?
And Rangers, and SEALs, and Delta, and Night Stalkers, and...
It's pretty rare for the CIA to conduct direct action without military support.
With what? With aircraft operating from what bases? With aircraft exposed to hostile anti-aircraft fire? With what kind of window?
I mean, I agree about resolving quite a few problems, but my point is that things would be much easier for US foreign policy if we could just nab or kill who-the-fuck-ever we wanted if we were willing to pay the PR and diplomatic costs.
But that's not how it works.
Am I saying employ zero fear? No, of course some is important. The problem is thinking it's going to work on Russians before it influences allies, some of whom are already on the edge of support.
Shock and Awe was against the Iraqi army, not the Taliban. They hide too well.
No, the CIA does it all the time. They are independent of the DoD. We have CIA assets in Russia right now, obviously. Do you see the DoD there too?
It's starting to seem like I'm just arguing with a military fan as opposed to a history fan. From a carrier probably. Afghanistan did not exactly have the strongest AA capabilities, did they?
At any rate, this is tiring, and I'm still looking for examples of threats to NATO. Most of the ones I was thinking of appear to have been deleted, which I am grateful for.
Regardless, I'm done with this debate, so feel free to drop your best final arguments. I will read them, but I am no longer responding. Frankly I have other stuff to do today too.
edit for grammar
I don't know what you're expecting. There have been considerable numbers of surrenders and defections as well as the fear contributing to general low morale in Russian forces on the front.
You asked about the GWOT, and the basic principle remains in our operations against the Taliban. Unless you think decapping mountains with massive bombs is just us being friendly.
Do you know the meaning of 'Direct Action'?
Worse, you're arguing against a History major.
Afghanistan is landlocked. The only two effective air routes are through Iran (unfriendly) and Pakistan (literally playing a double game). You wanna explain how that works?
How many aircraft are you willing to lose to 'weak' AA capabilities? We lost aircraft to hostile action in the Afghanistan War as it went. You want to see how much worse it would be over a country completely controlled by hostile forces? Free to set up AA wherever and however they want?
Okay, one more. How do you think we got men there in the first place? Teleportation? lol
And how many jets did we lose? Any stealth ones? Check your stats.
Through Pakistan. "Moving forces and supplies through Pakistan to station in Afghanistan where they decide their operation time and tempo" and "Every time we perform a strike Pakistan has a literal hour to warn whoever they want" are two entirely different things.
Okay, so your argument is that we could have killed Osama bin Laden with no ground forces except covert CIA observers if only we... used none of the tools we literally tried to kill him with for nearly ten years except for stealth jets launched from carriers off the shore of Pakistan and Iran, over a territory that, instead of being cleared and safe, is completely free for the Taliban to set up whatever AA they wanted and with plenty of warning time from their friends in the ISI.
... right. You have fun with that.
And time, I said time too. But yes, that actually is my argument.