Ukraine tells critics of slow counteroffensive to 'shut up'
Ukraine told critics of the pace of its three-month-old counteroffensive to "shut up" on Thursday, the sharpest signal yet of Kyiv's frustration at leaks from Western officials that say its forces are advancing too slowly.
您正在查看单个线程.
The comment threads here are weird. Who, in their right mind, would ever support a country like Russia? It's mind blowing.
Tankies.
Deride us as woke next.
Why would anyone do that? Wokeness is rad and cool, while tankies love to do fascist apologia, which is highly unwoke
Projection,Liberals have always supported nazis against "tankies"
"My terminally online movement is not full of fascists and useful idiots parroting fascist propaganda because of, uhm, history" Yes, tell me again about the freikorps while every day I see another hazoid being besties with Nazis, or being a fascist themselves.
Love how you call me terminally online while your argument for why i am a facist because of some random Haz fan. Also History is irrelevant now?
"Sure Liberals have supported facists everytime but have you considerd Haz"
"Tankies" fought alongside every anti colonial moments from Angola to Vietnam.
While Liberals were to busy supporting far right shitholes like Chile Isreal South Vietnam South Korea
I don't know if you're a fascist, I'm currently not interested enough to go checking.
how you call me terminally online
Because you're on Lemmy defending legacy of a pejorative identifier when confronted with the fact that the modern online tankie community has produced a number of fascist-aligned notable persons over the last years, and keeps spreading and regurgitating fascist propaganda because of the common alignment against the West.
The history is important. In this conversation, history is irrelevant. Stop making it about your honor
You dont get to decide that history is not relevant because it hurts your narrative of muh red fash tankies
"Please stop pointing out we're friends with fascists, it hurts our feefees. Don't you know that muh history means I'm very cool and honorable despite being an internet warrior".
You're one step removed from a nationalist. Except you're feeding your insecurity with a different flavour of a myth.
Non-sequitur, I have nothing to reply to
Literally a direct reply to the exact thing you said
Please learn reading comprehension
tankies love to do fascist apologia
I am quoting you here.
This is you committing the exact act being described in that article.
That makes it a direct reply to the exact thing you said.
Comment?
Oh look, calling communists fascists
Surely people who do that aren't supportive of double genocide theory, which Jewish holocaust scholars condemn as carrying water for nazism.
Every time I criticize tankies they:
Oh, which successful communists are you talking about?
Also, double genocide theory being holocaust trivialization still applies as it refers to calling the USSR fascist, if you think it is an irrelevant insuniation take it up with the Jewish holocaust scholars.
As I said to the person below, learn reading comprehension or fuck off. I don't want to engage in a conversation when I'm repeatedly being gaslit on what I said.
Which successful communists aren't you insulting by comparing to fascists, which again, carries water for fascists
It's impossible to insult successful communists, as there are none. Unless you lower your bar enough to ignore glaring issues like ethnic cleansing of "unloyal" peoples and recreation of the capitalist mode of production.
I'm not interested in the "no U" back-and-forth. If you want to defend online tankie community producing prominent fascists, then do so without deflecting. If you don't, then stop acting indignant
You're literally just carrying water for fascists, according to Jewish experts on the holocaust.
Tankies.
I am very smart
You rang?
Enjoy your servitude in the crumbling empire
Imagine being proud of a t34. Oof
You named yourself after a Nazi dive bomber.
Your username is literally stuka. Also, remember when Germany had their asses destroyed by the red army? That was funny.
Haha, you think I'm gonna defend nazis? Nah, they were worse than the soviets, but not by much. You tankied are about equivalent to neo nazis in my book
It's not supporting Russia to be critical of one-sided narratives or to call for peace for the sake of minimizing loss of life.
Russia is welcome to GTFO at any time.
The war was already going on before Russia sent troops in.
And that makes it okay for them to escalate it, how?
Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire. Russia escalated further by sending in troops. I didn't say it's "okay," but the blame isn't just on their side.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict? Because I'd like to condemn Russian escalation, but it's a little hard for me to do so if I don't have an answer to that question.
Ukraine escalated by violating the ceasefire.
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
If Russia wanted to ensure the safety of the people of Donbas (which is a big if tbf), what should they have done differently, at any point leading up to the conflict?
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".
Which one(s)? There were so many from 2014 onwards that I lost track. I'm always skeptical anytime one side gets all the blame for violating a ceasefire.
Minsk II was the one I was referring to, but it's a fair point.
If it really is about the people of Donbas and not annexing the land itself, they could have done what every country is supposed to do when the safety of people in a region is jeopardized – open their borders to refugees and asylum seekers. It would piss off Ukraine, but they could have just been like "Come across the border and we'll set you up with a Russian passport".
Ok, let me rephrase that then. Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia, or should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country? Because I think that a lot of this mess could've be avoided if Ukraine had simply given them a referendum, but instead they banned opposition parties, which says to me that they knew how the people there would vote.
This is like saying that the US should've invaded Cuba when they started taking nationalizing property instead of doing what the other person said and accepting refugees and asylum seekers. There's always another way besides war and violence.
There isn't always another way besides violence. The German invasion of the USSR was a war of extermination. Laying down and dieing is not morally superior.
There are countless of well-documented examples of the American empire sponsoring terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations against Cuba. To this day the American empire upholds an illegal an unprovoked blockade of the island as well as occupying the land on which the Guantanamo naval base and torture black site is placed.
Before the revolution, America ran Cuba as a colony, leeching off the hard work of Cubans. If anything, the history of American relations with Cuba has been one of profound violence.
But okay, most of the times they made sure to put in a middle-man to do the actual dirty work which absolves them of all sin I guess.
That's basically what Russia was doing in Ukraine by propping up pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. But I guess it's fine when they do that, bendy they succeeeded, it's only bad when America does it, because they failed.
And are you saying you would've been fine if the US did a full-scale invasion of Cuba then, because they did all that other stuff? Otherwise, that was all unrelated and besides the point.
They tried, using a proxy force of Cuban exiles.
Oh! Well then we see eye-to-eye in that case. I think Western support to Ukraine should be limited to accepting refugees and providing humanitarian aid, not weapons. I think Ukraine should be open to ceding territory in negotiations in order to end the war and prevent further loss of life. There's always another way besides war and violence. I'm all about peace, glad we're in agreement.
Do you believe that the people have Donbas have a right to self-determination and representation in government, and that that right would include having some possible roadmap to joining Russia
Of course. They just don't have a right to drag the rest of Ukraine into Russia at the same time. On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement on the grounds of "why should I care if a country's capitalist class loses some of its economic base?"
should they be forced to either go along with whatever the new government wanted or abandon their homes and flee the country?
No, but if that's what was happening we could all then be criticizing a peacetime government for acting injustice upon segments of its population, instead of advocating for an end to a war. The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to "save" a group of people isn't one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn't we be in a constant state of war everywhere? (Since there's pretty much at least one oppressed group in every country worldwide at least one other country could claim a right to "protect" them based on shared heritage or language.)
Just because Russia (might) have the military capability to do so when all these other countries might not doesn't mean they should.
On principle, I support pretty much any separatist movement
The idea that a country should intervene militarily in order to "save" a group of people isn't one based on honest, good-faith altruism on the part of the country that wants to intervene, if it were, then wouldn't we be in a constant state of war everywhere?
I don't see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously. If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, "No, and we'll use force to stop you," and another country says, "Hey, seperatists, we'll support you," then where do you stand on all that? You're pro-seperatist while being anti-supporting seperatists? That doesn't make any sense, you could look at just about any successful seperatist movement and see that they recieved foreign backing from someone and that it was likely a crucial factor in winning, for example, French support in the American revolution. This foreign support is generally less motivated by altruism and more by the assisting nation's geopolitical goals, but it's all the same to the seperatists who need it to survive.
To me your stance is coming across as, you support the seperatists, but also they should've backed down immediately when Ukraine used force to avoid a war, but in that case it seems like you don't actually support the seperatists in practice.
I don't see how you can hold these two positions simultaneously.
They're about different things. One is an opinion about bottom-up, community activism and the principle of self-determination, and is a belief that exists independently of the material conditions and reality of global politics. France only supported the Americans in order to "get back" at England. They later regretted it when the Americans supported the French Revolution. When I say I support separatism, I am thinking specifically about how Lenin released all of the Russian Empire's colonial nations, regardless of how it might adversely impact the Soviet states' security prerogatives.
If part of a country wants to leave, and the government of that country says, "No, and we'll use force to stop you," and another country says, "Hey, seperatists, we'll support you," then where do you stand on all that?
Like I said with France and the 13 colonies – no country is actually saying that or has ever said that. France didn't go "yeah, we love what you're trying to do 13 colonies and support your beliefs wholeheartedly", they went "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals." Likewise, Russia, having lost Ukraine (and the Eastern Bloc), is trying to regain its lost glory, and it just so happens that they can exploit Donbas separatism in order to do so.
My understanding of the Donbas is that it was largely populated by Russians from the Russian SFSR during the era of open borders within the Soviet States, which also makes things different than Catalans, Kurds, and Scots, for example.
They did do that. My coworkers aunt was finally granted Russian citizenship and was ecstatic. They granted citizenship to a number of refugees in the war.
Right, Ukraine was fighting corruption. Russia entered on the side of... corruption.
"Fighting corruption" is an interesting way to describe sustained artillery bombardments of civilian targets.
Fighting this corruption:
Hoo boy wait til you see what Zelenskyy was up to.
Why are you defending oligarchs?
Seems like you are. Zelensky was in the paradise papers
A few million dollars earned from acting is an oligarch to you?
Better keep reading and you'll find a real one:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-russia-dismisses-leaks-implicating-putin
I'm not sure what that has to do with shelling cities, are you suggesting he was hiding in one of the buildings or what?
Look, the heckin' wholesome slava ukrainis didn't know where he was so they had to shell everywhere! It's like playing Battleship, except it's mostly other random innocent people that you hit
Yes, but the liberal pro-EU protestors got sidelined by literal neo-Nazis. The following President was basically handpicked by the US Ambassador. There's plenty of western media from 2015-2021 about the integration of Azov into the Ukrainian military structure, the rehabilitation of World War II collaborators, and the suppression of the Russian language. The people of the East are, in principle, just as entitled to wish to join Russia as western Ukraine is to join the EU.
Ukraine also crucified little boys in pants. The info from the same source
A compromise now is bad for russia, russia basically has to be able to extort Western Europe to not to be crippled for decades. Germany is apparently working to that end now.
It's so fucking funny when the geopolitics understanders who have been drip-fed NATO propaganda state the clear opposite of reality and think they made an insightful comment.
Russia has all but won the military conflict, as has been made clear by this utter failure of a "counteroffensive." Russia is doing better economically than before the SMO, despite the supposed economic wunderwaffen sanctions that only backfired and hurt NATO countries. Russia has only gained support by most of the rest of the world and has showed the global south that the US/NATO are indeed paper tigers. Russia has all the leverage now. So yes, for Russia to compromise right now would be bad for them because they don't need to compromise, they can keep going as they have been and eventually have their demands met, or Ukraine/NATO can recognize they've lost and make a bid for peace by acquiescing to Russia's demands before more lives are needlessly lost.
Ukraine on the other hand will be crippled for decades regardless of how things pan out. Ukraine is now deeply indebted to Western countries, has already had all national assets sold off, has had a major chunk of its working-age population killed or maimed, and is beholden to a fascist, nazi-worshipping government.
As for Germany, yeah they have been working to the end of hobbling themselves for decades too by allowing their remaining industrial capacity to be completely gutted, kowtowing to their US masters that bombed their infrastructure to prevent them ever again getting oil from 'The Bad Country,' they have irreparably removed nuclear power as an option even as they're facing an impending energy crisis (in large part because of aforementioned no-oil-from-bad-country), and are right now also sliding towards right wing populism.
Ohh won't someone think of the poor invading war criminals!
History started in feb 2022
Ukrainians are dying too, including ones drafted against their will. Maybe you should fight in their place before asking them to die on your behalf.
? We have tho? My country has sent like $80 billion dollars so far to the invading war criminals.
Free the Donbass
It's not so one-sided as you think. Ukraine used civilians as human shields https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/07/19/zrjy-j19.html
So you’d want peace by Ukraine giving up its territory?
How about peace talks that involve Russia giving back all Ukrainian lands (including Crimea) and pulling all troops out.
Why stop there, how about demanding Russia provide every Ukrainian with a talking unicorn buddy?
I live in reality and when I say I want peace it means I believe in negotiating based on realistic expectations.
Shouldn't the people of Crimea get to decide whether they want to live under Kyiv's rule?
You mean the Russians that Russia settled there? Curious what you think about the Uighurs getting to break away a country from China.
Crimea was annexed with zero shots fired. Maybe Ukraine should respect the voices of the people living in eastern ukraine.
They mean the people that live in the region. What kind of fucking shit nationalism is this? Are you a leftist or a nationalist?
Most of the people I'm talking about were either born there or have lived there for longer than Ukraine has existed as a state. Those people should be the ones in charge of the fate of Crimea, regardless of their ethnicity. I don't believe in blood and soil nationalism where only certain ethnicities get to be full citizens.
By "the Uighers" I assume you're talking about Xinjiang? The most serious separatist movement there is the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, the US recognized these guys as a terrorist group in 2002. The US continued to recognize them as a terrorist group until 2020, when the US decided that it would be more politically convenient for them to not be terrorists anymore. The overall populace supports the central government. It's 90+% approval for China overall, I can't find a breakdown by region. If the people of Xinjiang were to lose faith in the central government and decided to go their own way then I would support them. The important part is that is has to be the people, not terror groups, not US-backed NGOs, and not US-backed protest movements, that support the separatism movement.
Get out of your bubble. The majority of the world supports Russia. It's an uncommon view in Europe/USA, but common everywhere else.
Also, being anti NATO expansion doesn't mean you support Russia. That is a reductive world view.
Regardless of how many despots find Putin's approach appealing, it remains fundamentally wrong.
Who said anything about despots? These are opinions of people, not rulers. Citizens of Africa, Asia, South America have suffered under US hegemony, so they view the Russian State different than you do.
The world isn't as simple as Russia bad, US good.
O rly? Because I thought things were simple. I, like everyone who isn't already fully on team hexbear, am an idiot. Please cite your sources.
Weird how they ask for sources then never respond. Almost as if they're just arguing in bad faith and trying to waste time.
It may take them sometime to digest, especially if they had a marvel movie USA good Russia/China bad worldview.
Hopefully they grow from the knowledge.
Have you even read these?
Just one example:
Nearly half (46%) globally said that the European Union, United States and Nato were doing too little to assist Ukraine, while 11% said they are doing too much
Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.
Or in other words, the majority of the world supports Russia.
As your quote shows the article you're citing from doesn't only look at peoples' views of the war in Ukraine, but shows a big divide between progressive and conservative nations. Eg. the majority in SE Asia, the Middle East and Africa doesn't care as much for Putin invading Ukraine as they do for him stomping on the gays and progressives.
Sadly, conservatives outnumber progressives globally.
American cultural conflicts are not world politics. This has nothing to do with "the gays" or progressives (meaning less term).
Cuba is against NATO expansion. If you think it's because Cuba allegedly hates gays you need to study both history and recent events before forming political opinions.
Sure, for what it's worth I could concede that a global majority might approve of support for Ukraine according to this data. Looking at raw data from: https://www.allianceofdemocracies.org/initiatives/the-copenhagen-democracy-summit/dpi-2023/
That figure may not be accurate however, especially because I can't see that they computed a weighted global total by population. They extrapolate to obtain each "nationally representative result" by taking into account the respondents' age, gender and education to mitigate selection bias. I have my doubts about extrapolating like that, but okay. The main problem is when you check the global total, it's just an unweighted average of all nations.
Highlighted in orange: Top - unweighted average of all nations, Bottom - reported figure from the authorEach country has ~1000 respondents, so there isn't a proportional representation of each country based on its population - small countries (mostly imperial core, as it happens) have an outsized effect on the average.
But why post it when you think it's a shit paper
Nearly half (46%) globally said that the European Union, United States and Nato were doing too little to assist Ukraine, while 11% said they are doing too much
I do think the paper is flawed but not useless. I wasn't really the one who posted it though, it's the primary source for this claim in the other article.
I, like everyone who isn't already fully on team hexbear, am an idiot
Please cite your sources.
What a surprise, a childish dipshit.
All you're doing is insulting people. This behavior is why
is a necessity.PPB aka juicy thread located
Source?
You sure are
At least you can admit it
despots
Lol racist libs, amirite? Idiot.
Libs just can't help expose themselves
Lol the thing I just did but laughing it off like it's ridiculous to say haha
Why is the west not despots but the rest of the world is?
Well thankfully most of the powerful (economically and militarily) nations support Ukraine. You’re the one in a bubble.
So people in the developing world don't get an opinion because their country is poor and weak?
I think it's bad for thousands of ukrainians to die in war they cannot win, which they do not want to fight, purely so NATO can accomplish some esoteric geopolitical goal, but that's just me
I'd say they're doing much better than you hoped
Why would I hope people die? And in what way is Ukraine doing well? Even Western sources agree the counteroffensive is a failure. It has yet to break thru the Russian lines
Why do you think Ukrainians don't want to defend their country?
If you suggest they better surrender asap because Russia has a bigger army, who do you think should be next?
Because they're banned from leaving and are being forcibly conscripted. If they wanted to fight it would not be necessary to ban them from leaving (trying to flee conscription) and it would not be necessary to forcibly conscript them.
I think they should surrender because the Ukrainians being forced to fight obviously do not want to fight, and because they have no chance of winning, so this is just senseless.
Do you believe the Russian soldiers are volunteers?
No they're also conscripted, but we're discussing Ukraine which is checks notes a different country, specifically a country which is losing people at an alarming rate.
So if a bigger country conscripts their people to invade you you should checks notes take the moral high road, get overrun and surrender as soon as possible
If a country is throwing thousands of people to their death against their own will in a futile attempt to win a lost war, then I think it's better those people get to go home and live, rather than die, since the end result is the same.
Had the situation been reversed then I would have called for Russia to accept a peace deal as well.
People dying for no reason is bad actually.
They're literally running out of bodies dude
They'll slow their offensive to match. But every invader they can kill, every tank they destroy is one the next guys won't have to fight.
That's my point. What next guys.
BRICS. Even if they don’t necessarily support Russia it may just be an opportunity to take shots at the West.
Tankies claim to not be supporting Russia but only point out issues with Ukraine and believe every bit of info that comes out of Russia.
Hexbear never criticizes Russia except for all the times we criticize Russia https://hexbear.net/post/278334
It's a whole subculture. I don't know, I can think of weirder conspiracy theories with a following.
Hexbear.net is a Russian nationalist instance... They've grown up under Putin's cencorship and state media brainwashing.
Lmao new tagline dropped.
No one on hexbear supports Russia, it's a neoliberal hellscape that's somehow even worse than the us on LGBTQ rights. We just dont uncritically consume state department propaganda.
By no one, I assume you mean everyone, including the Russian troll bots?
