this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

37467 readers
500 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
0
Zelensky admits Ukraine does not have military strength to reclaim lost territories from Russia (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 8 months ago by davel@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Well Ukraine got worn out over last 2 years with spotty western support and weird restrictions on weapons usage.

This is where the west wanted Ukraine. So here we are.

Russia is weakened so west and US got what they wanted it so now we are ready to do a deal.

Nobody will ever give up nukes after this and many countries are going to be getting their nukes in order as that is the only way to properly secure sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Coupled with Israel behavior undermining "rules" based international order, this is the brave new world we got.

Cheers.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is where the west wanted Ukraine. So here we are.

Russia is weakened so west and US got what they wanted it so now we are ready to do a deal.

What the West wanted ideally was the balkanization and re-neocolonialization of Russia. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/17/the-west-is-preparing-for-russias-disintegration/

The “weakening” of Russia is what they considered “second prize,” but they didn’t even get that, because Russia is now stronger. The sanctions have backfired. Russia has severed its ties with the “garden” and strengthened its ties to the “jungle.”

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Unlikely. If the west was pushing to destroy Russia they would have provided Ukraine with adequate arms to do so. They deliberately created a drawn out long conflict. Whether Russia has been weakened as they hoped is debateable. It does not yet appear so.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The west has to balance providing adequate arms and not getting bombed/invaded themselves. They only do invasions on enemies they think can't defend themselves.

They thought the sanctions would do to Russia what it did to Libya, Venezuela, Iraq, and many others, and that they'd only need to drag this one out to win it on the economic rather than the military front. That obviously hasn't worked, so rather than broker the peace talks a majority of Ukrainians want, they're escalating because they don't know how to do diplomacy, they only know how to do extortion. They're talking about "negotiating from strength" ffs.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago

They wanted to destroy Russia economically, not militarily, you know, the usual "bog them in forever war and sanction them to death because we control the world finance systems" and it had a good chance of success, but they miscalculated since Russia relations with China and global south in general proven to be much more robust. It was also first time after 1991 so many countries just told US "no" when they demanded another country be destroyed economically. As result BRICS managed to build their own alternative for US controlled finance system, which is pretty ad hoc by now, but it already works and is being strenghtened.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The restrictions aren't "weird". These are weapons that need satellite guidance from NATO satellites and stockpiled at NATO bases.

If they started being fired en masse, Russia would need to disable those satellites, and the US only instigated this war to weaken Russia and prevent it from arming anti imperialist resistance groups in the middle east. It's not interested in actually fighting, because fighting an organized army is much harder, much costlier, and carries more risk than invading Asian countries with peasant militias.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

US only instigated this war to weaken Russia

Well, that’s certainly a perspective.

Really unclear how the US forced Russia to invade, you’ll have to explain that part I think.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Not forced, more goaded. This is the war the US wanted, but it didn’t want to be seen as the one who started it.

NATO expansion:

.
US-backed Maidan coup & fascist attacks on Eastern Ukraine:

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Fucking Gish Gallop Christ.

Nobody forced Russia to invade another sovereign nation. If anything it goes to show that being in NATO keeps you safe from Russia (just look at the baltic states). If Putin and/or Russia's goal was to stop NATO expansion this war already did the opposite.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago

Jesus Fucking Gish Gallop Christ.

All of those are Western sources, and most of them are well-known, MB/FC-blessed sources.

Next you’re going to tell me that NATO is a defensive alliance.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Love the “you made me do this to you” energy here, very progressive stance of believing that sometimes abusers just have to hit people, and there’s truly nothing that can be done about it.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The geopolitics of nuclear powers as an interpersonal relationship. Peak Marvel brain.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah, analogies are hard when you take them as literally as possible.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Gringos and their fucking victim complex I swear. Y'all just got done toppling Syria and their people are already being stoned to death in the street when they're not being bombed. A few years ago you did it to Haiti, and they're starving to death, like you did it to Peru, and you did it to Libya, where there are slave markets now thanks to y'all.

So this is less an abusive partner insisting it's your fault and more a motherfucker who's killed hundreds waving a knife inches from your face insisting you're a menace for clocking him. The fact that the US launders its provocations through their client states doesn't mean the rest of the world is as stupid as westerners to buy it. We're not invested in empire, so we don't have to close our eyes and pretend we're the good guys in this.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Wow, I had no idea I personally intervened in Syria, Myanmar, Haiti, and Libya, I must have a ton of airline rewards and severe memory issues!

Don’t sins-of-the-father me if you don’t even know where I am, thanks in advance.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I know libs don't do it personally, they limit themselves to cheering on genocides from their armchair and stamping down on people who want to stop their imperialist governments

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Have you considered that doing an imperialism under a non-western flag is still doing an imperialism?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Russia, if given its druthers, would be imperialist, but since it presently doesn’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialist club, but that was rejected, because the US wanted Russia Balkanized & plundered instead. Russia has figured out it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It’s only imperialism if it comes from the West, otherwise it’s just sparkling being an asshole to your neighbors isn’t a winning argument.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's imperialism if it has the characteristics of imperialism, wishing it really hard because that's a word that would be an amazing gotcha isn't enough. Imperialism is, to really overly simplify it: the extraction of surplus value, often in the form of labor through financial instruments from one country to another. Russia's position in the world is not that of imperialist extraction (except in the participation prior to the sanctions in the western financial sector) since capital was still consolidating its power over the working class in Russia, given that its capitalist system (another western imposition) wasn't developed enough to do so, and it was still mostly an export economy.

Now, I eagerly await for the flat-earth level analysis of "but I see it and I think it is imperialist".

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I mean, we agree, Russia intends to exploit Ukraine’s natural gas reserves in the regions they are occupying, which definitely meets the definition you set out so…

Unless you’re insisting that Russia is going to just give that territory up after all this, despite them claiming they have a hereditary right to it all, because they just really wouldn’t want to accidentally profit off taking over their neighbors territory in which case, it sounds like the “flat earth level analysis” is coming from inside the house.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s not exclusive to the West. Japan did it for sixty years, until it was made a vassal of the US, which it still is today[1][2].

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure what the point of this considering that I am specifically calling you out for refusing to admit Russia is doing an imperialism and your deflection is to say that Japan did an imperialism. Is that supposed to make Russia all clear to do an imperialism?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It seems you didn’t read what I linked to, so I’ll copypasta:

<octopus_ink> Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?

<davel> In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.

Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Still hinging literally everything on Donbas not being externally caused I see. As long as you cover up interference in other countries, it’s fine to use that as pretext to invade and do whatever you want.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

So Donbas was externally caused because... we should trust you that it was?

But Ukraine's 2014 coup wasn't externally caused because... it was different from all the other times the US deposed a government, since this time they put congresspeople like John McCain on the ground? Even US, anti-Russian sources recognize it as fact.

At this point you have to be deliberately dodging the evidence to not recognize what's going on.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

More deeply unserious nonsense.

[–] Ciderpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

As opposed to accusing someone on the Internet of personally overthrowing multiple governments, which actually very serious and definitely not nonsense…

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

This is also missing the fact that Russia and Ukraine already had a peace agreement, the Minsk II accords. Which Ukraine promptly violated by bombing Donbas for 5 years and killing upwards of 14 thousand civilians.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I’m sorry but those happened before the beginning of history, which started on February 24, 2022.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The war exists only because Russia's conditions for peace are not accepted. No NATO (or missile bases) in Ukraine. There was a very patient peace agenda by Russia, signed by the west and Ukraine btw, before SMO.

[–] Hawke@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The war exists because Russia invaded. You can’t have a “peace agenda” or “conditions for peace” until someone started a war in the first place, and that was Russia.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't believe your position can be honest. It basically says all bar fights are started by the one throwing first punch, no matter what threats are made. All US media and CIA subterfuge to corrupt democracies is not done for the benefit of the democracies. War on Russia is largely a US war on its allies, and tolerance for the concept that Russia is not forced to defend its existence, or have red lines where peace can thrive, just shows how corrupt and fooling democracy can be. Not that Ukraine is a democracy.