this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024

292 points (96.5% liked)

Political Memes

5535 readers

2675 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

292

rEd lINeS (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/politicalmemes

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] EnderMB 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can see why people are starting to get a little more concerned with regards to western retaliation, given that there aren't many more steps that can be taken before NATO finally bite the bullet, bring Ukraine into the fold, and formally enter the conflict.

It feels like there's a game of chicken being played by all sides, all while Ukraine lose lives and land.

What surprises me is the lack of opposition that Putin seems to have. Close to a million Russian lives are lost, their economy is crumbling, yet no one seems to think of officially or unofficially offering a way out for the Russians. While Russia is arguably at the point of no return, a new leader could pull out immediately, rebuild relationships with the west, and transform an economy overnight. All they need to do, at a high level, is not be such a cunt.

[–] Shardikprime 1 points 1 hour ago

Thesr kind of regimes are in a state of constant implosion because they can't trust each others.

The only thing that stops them from collapsing is the outward pressure of being disappeared without being able to trust anyone else.

Challenging the status quo to them is basically suicide.

Eventually many loyal disappear and are replaced with new members. This new layer is consumed at a very fast rate but still takes a while to disappear

The only way it collapses is when the center concentrates so much power, without needing to disappear anyone because all possible traitors are gone, that is akin to an iron fist.

That's when the upper layers start collapsing on the core

[–] Dragomus 60 points 2 days ago

At the top should be "1991-2001 Ukraine must give Russia it's nuclear missiles or they can no longer be friends, if they do give them, Russia will recognize Ukraine as an independent state and soverignty over its borders"

1991 - 2001 Ukraine gives russia all of its nuclear arsenal.

2014 - Russia invades Ukraine anyway, attempts to "anonymize" its soldiers, when caught declares them on holiday and not under its juristiction, meanwhile proclaims captured territories and population as Russian.

2022 - Russia starts a full scale invasion of Ukraine, declaring Ukraine as a country never existed, it's always been part of Russia. Starts abducting and brainwashing children, replaces original populace in captured areas with Russians, and expedites new Russian passports for the rest.

Somewhere in there there might still be reasoning towards a red line, but I lost track of it :-D

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

i want to thank the internet minds (maybe OP or whoever made this) for breaking down military strategy in a way i can almost understand <3 keep doing what you do across the board because im lowkey not smart lol

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago

what is this meant to imply? that Russia has never done anything?

[+] Cleggory -72 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Ukraine has lost over 40% of land it seized in Russia's Kursk region, senior Kyiv military source says

Meanwhile Moscow occupies more than 20% of Ukrainian territory.

This proxy war is a very obvious failure.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's not a proxy war if the primary aggressor is the great power - that's just a war of aggression

[–] Cleggory 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine thinking you can singlehandedly redefine proxy wars to fit your narrow definition.

[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Who do you think started the war lmao?

Yes, the 3 day military operation was a failure :)

[+] Cleggory -44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's never too late to rejoin reality.

Ukraine front could 'collapse' as Russia gains accelerate, experts warn

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You didn't answer the question.

[+] Cleggory -46 points 2 days ago (3 children)

NATO expansion has no consequences right?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What expansion? The last two countries joined as result of Russian aggression. The ones before joined because they themselves had experienced that only the membership in a strong alliance can potentially safe them from annexation (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland [the last after a deal with literally Hitler]). And once again tell me, why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing when you don't intend to invade said countries?

Don't want to invade your neighbour? Then their NATo-membership is not a problem, hell how about trying to join yourselves?

[+] Cleggory -10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What expansion?

why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing

how about trying to join yourselves

You went full circle jerk implying no expansion exists, but then immediately contradicting yourself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Where is the contradiction?

What expansion?

Doubting the expansion of NATO.

Why would anyone be afraid of a defensive alliance growing?

Hypothetical question after which context is provided, "when you don't want to invade them?" Asking a hypothetical question is not contradictory to doubting the expansion.

How about trying to join yourself?

I don't understand why you quoted that.

[+] Cleggory -8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You went from implying no expansion has occurred, to implying such expansion is a good thing without any consequences, to finally preaching that all who hear your 'wisdom' should try joining NATO themselves.

Are these the differing stages of grief before acceptance of failure?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was saying that there was no expansion before Russia declared war in violation of all international laws and treaties, and in violation of the treaty Russia signed that guarantees Ukrainian independence.

Afterwards NATO grew, whether you want to call to expansion which implies that it is the goal of NATO to grow and threaten its neighbours or you just call it grow which reflects the reality of countries voluntarily joining.

And my comparison was that you cannot threaten your neighbours with a potential war and then expect them to just await their fate without resistance. They have the right to join an alliance as has every sovereign state. They have the right to chose the political system they want as does every sovereign state.

But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson. Russia was apparently on the toilet at the time

[–] Cleggory 0 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

But NO ONE has the right to change the outline of borders by means of war. The world has lost a few million people so that everyone should have learned that lesson.

So it's bad when Russia does it but the US is correct in backing Israel changing its borders through imperialism?

No hypocrisy detected by you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Like xor said, you seem to have quite the understanding of my views on topics I've not even discussed. Also whataboutism and gaslighting - have you perhaps run out of arguments? [Edit: after revisiting the thread, I've realised that you never even wrote an argument. Gaslighting and whataboutism is the only thing you do. And if you were to count them as arguments, you're clearly argumenting in bad faith.]

Take a step back and ask yourselves in whose interest you're argumenting. I myself am arguing in my own interest that is perhaps selfish. Yet based on that interest I believe it is correct to say Ukraine needs to not lose and better yet win. Otherwise Russia set the precedent that war is once again ultima ratio of diplomacy. Something the world more or less unitedly felt to be outdated. Yes, countries have used wars to push interests in other countries, mostly to change the leadership (most famously the USA and the USSR, but also China, France, the UK). No major power tried to move borders prior to Russia's illegal attack on Ukraine.

As for Israel my interest lies in lasting peace and to ensure that there will always be a place where Jews are welcome. To that end the war needs to end now. Israel mustn't further fan the flames. The surrounding countries must find a way to live in peace with Israel. Israel must revise their constitution to allow for actually equal rights of any non-Jewish people, ideally by forming a state union with Palestine with equal representation of the latter. And such a country should be formed in the same mindset as post-war Germany.

But saying all that, there's a massive difference in complexity between the two. The Gaza war has a convoluted mess of history to it. Solving that is not only challenging but necessary to achieve even a semblance of peace that has any chance of lasting. The war in Ukraine is much simpler. There's not even a remote semblance of justification to it. It is literally just: Russia must stop the war and attempt to reverse the damages caused as far as that is possible.

And out of interest for future World peace, the ones responsible need to face legal consequences by a tribunal that is impartial and non-partisan.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

They never even mentioned Israel, you just decided that was their stance so you could call them a hypocrite

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Who is "you"? I didn't make any such claim. I commented to the conversation that you had with someone else, because I really didn't see any contradiction.

So I certainly didn't imply any of that.

I fail to see how the other person implied it is a good thing. The other person implied it is inconsequential if you don't intend to attack. That isn't good. Whether or not, that statement is accurate, is a different discussion, then whether or not a person implied that it is good.

I don't understand what failure you are talking about but clearly you aren't mistaken in with whom you are talking. But given what you wrote and based on that your understanding of the situation, I don't understand where you see grief in what you think, was written.

I mean, it is valid perspective. You can doubt the existence while welcoming the existence and encouraging it. E.g. i doubt that there is a god, but I think the existence of a god would be good and I would welcome someone to be that god.

Again, I don't see them saying what you think they said but if they did, it would be a valid perspective.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago

ok tankie

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago

Putin invading neutral countries proves that remaining neutral is stupid, and they should join NATO.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The point is not to hold more Russian land than Russia holds Ukrainian land (lmao). It's to deplete their reserves and destroy their economy - which has been working out well, all things considered. You can regain every meter of occupied territory without firing a shot if the Russian state is brought to its knees.

[+] Cleggory -39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The same talking points (propaganda) that falsely predicted a Russian economic collapse within moments of western sanctions when the war started years ago.

the Russian state is brought to its knees.

Imagine not being a simp to western hegemony and not wanting humans to suffer in any country.

[–] sartalon 35 points 2 days ago

Fucking troll.

Putin said he was gonna roll over Ukraine, and we all thought he was gonna roll over Ukraine.

What has been shown is that Putin and his war machine is a fuckin bitch.

Ukraine has been going toe to toe with Russia for fucking years now.

Sure Ukraine has been propped up, but Russian has had to empty prisons and make deals with Iran and North Korea for military aid. Talk about the Axis of evil clowns.

I have almost no respect for Russian leadership. Almost less respect than I do for my next president.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 days ago (1 children)

that falsely predicted a Russian economic collapse within moments of western sanctions

Nobody predicted an immediate collapse. Stop making things up. One look at Russia's economy shows that the sanctions are highly effective nonetheless.

Imagine not being a simp to western hegemony and not wanting humans to suffer in any country.

Imagine being a simp for a mafia state run by the richest man on the planet hellbent on destroying a sovereign nation at the cost of his own people. Doesn't get much shittier than this, doesn't it?

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What it has been is a failure to convince smaller nations that they don't need nukes. Great job everyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

no, that's been working out just fine, the question is wether it was a good thing

spoiler

it wasn't

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Something has gone wonky with my internal parser. Can't figure out what point you're making. Might double back after another coffee, but I'd appreciate if you could clarify?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean robbing smaller countries of their nukes has been working great, I just consider it a bad thing

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 2 points 1 day ago

Cheers yeah same page

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

[Sorry, you just committed an act of Wrongthink™. Currently supporting Nato, western expansion, and Neoliberalism are the Popular and Correct Opinions™. Continued offences will result in being labeled a Russian bot by smug white Liberals.]

[–] PugJesus 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Western expansion is when Russia expands westward and performs genocide on Ukrainians, huh?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Its when we put missles near moscow, overthrow nearby governments (color revolutions), and then get shocked when that leads to war. Im not saying its justified but its not shocking either, imagine if china overthrew the Canadian government and started shipping them weapons.

[–] PugJesus 1 points 7 hours ago

Its when we put missles near moscow,

The Cold War has been over for some thirty fucking years.

overthrow nearby governments (color revolutions)

Jesus fucking Christ.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

That's a very reductive description of the orange revolution and euromaidan, though.

In both cases, the US didn't come in and overthrow the Ukrainian government, there was no assassination, no military coup. At a stretch the most you could reasonably argue the US was involved was egging them on.

It was just an enormous number of Ukrainians protesting the abuse of their political system.

The first time, because the president ordered the kidnapping of a journalist ON VIDEO (whose body was then found, decapitated) then attempted to rig the election in favour of his successor - this resulted in massive protests until the election was re-run (this time with international observers) at the demand of their own supreme court.

The latter because the president ran on a platform of EU alignment, then immediately betrayed the people who elected him by doing the exact opposite in order to placate Russia. He was then removed by parliament, who had a legal right to do exactly that.

Note how, both times, the government was removed, not by a couple, but by the legitimate political institutions of the country.