• OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    A lot of writing in that article is bad, but this takes the propaganda cake:

    Russia also has the advantage of time. While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy. The White House and seats in Congress change hands. Policies change as voters grow weary of supporting other countries.

    It’s like an onion. There’s so many levels to these 3 sentences, that if I start peeling them apart, I’ll burst into tears.

    • Saint_Seiya91@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      7 months ago

      Incredibly out of reality. They are essentially implying that only the west is accountable to their constituents while the East can do whatever they want because the population is “brainwashed”.

      Meanwhile the US state is in a constant state of governing against the interests of their own people.

      • die_livster@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 months ago

        they want because the population is “brainwashed”.

        it seems like a form of the “asiatic hordes” theme that has been so prevalent for so long

    • If someone could explain the significant material differences between my 2 choices that would be great, but the west seems to be able to stick it out just as long as the elections change nothing.

      Also the studies that show popular will has no impact on what the government does cries

  • NikkiB@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 months ago

    “While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy.”

    My three biggest flaws:

    1.) I work too hard.

    2.) I care too much.

    3.) I would’ve kicked your ass if my bros didn’t pull me away.

  • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 months ago

    Maybe it’s just because I’m a determinist, but they could never have won. This was the only possible outcome because it’s what the conditions amounted to.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Pretty much no serious experts thought Ukraine could win. The fact that so many leaders in the west convinced themselves it was possible shows that any serious debate is dead. They just surround themselves with sycophants, and live in echo chambers where everybody just repeats what they all want to hear.

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        If there’s a 90% chance that something would happen a non-determinist would say there was still a 10% chance something could succeed. A determinist would look at what happened and figure out how there was a 100% chance it would happen regardless of the initial odds.

    • LeniX@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That’s not being a ‘determinist’, that’s just plain old mathematical certainty, considering Russia’s powerful industrial output, technological superiority, population advantage and supreme military experience. Also - overpriced NATO wonder weapons proved their papertigerness.

      The US, the neocon monsters, those with actual competence… My take is - either the vast majority of them or ALL of them knew the impossibility of victory on the battlefield. That was not the point anyway

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I know, I’m just wondering if I’d imagine there were different possible outcomes if I believed in free will.

    • taiphlosion@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      Right? Back in 2014 it was the most corrupt with a neo-Nazi problem, I was reading articles about it in 2016

  • Giyuu@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 months ago

    Thehill can eat shit. Their entire shtick was to corral Bernie supporters into a dead end so they wouldn’t actually radicalize.

  • Catradora-Stalinism☭@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    remember back when this first started how confident libs were

    that fucking ukraine could win a war of attrition against Russia, while using nazis? Russia won the moment they actually committed to the war.

    • comrade-bear@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      I always claimed that Russia won in the first speech where he said that if other European foreces interfere they would not have time to think before they are dragged into the conflict. That significantly restricted the range of actions Europe and even the US had to strike back. That in my opining all but ensured that Ukraine would loose

  • xkyfal18@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    And the sky is blue and grass is green… We pretty much knew this ever since early 2022 lmao

  • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Analysis of the article that is seemingly biased towards Pax Americana:

    • The Kyiv government have inferior military resource in both quality and quantity. This implies that the claim by Pax Americana news outlet that Russians used outdated weapons that is so inaccurate that it targets civilians by mistake was a mere projection of attacks on civilians by Kyiv and Azov thugs.
    • The Kyiv government depends completely on USA government for support against the humanitarian intervention from Russia. This implies that Euromaiden Kyiv government lack democratic support which implied that the 2019 Ukraine election was rigged or unrepresentative of the whole Ukraine population.
    • Putin engaged in attrition which gave advantage to Russians since it cause the slow loss of military supplies, morality of troops, and external support of Euromaiden Kyiv while Russia have sufficient supplies and support for the humanitarian intervention. This implied that the claim by Pax Americana that Putin is losing military resources, morality of soldiers, and support was a lie. It also contradicts the previous Pax Americana claim that Putin was wasting too much national resource in the war or that Putin was aggressively expanding Russian “occupation” of Ukraine. This also has the implication that Putin honestly follows his claim to only engage in humanitarian intervention for protection of rebelling states.
    • The article did not mention the justification that Putin have for the military intervention nor the context which implies genuine Pax Americana biases.
    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I find every article from western mainstream media has to be packed with these cliches nowadays. They squirrel the admissions in between, but they have to pour on copium on top.

      • OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Even if they dont believe the copium, or even secretly loathe doling it out, they have to if they want to keep their jobs.

  • bruhbeans@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Was the goal ever to win? I assumed the goal always was to have another permanent stalemate backed up by endless US arms sales; basically a second Israel.