Ukrainian War VI: Pyrrhus in Bakhmut

[El Lazaro]

Yes. because as incompetent as Russia is, without weapons, training, and other supplies provided by NATO, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago.



And that makes Putin invading Ukraine NATO's fault how?

They helped make Putin gain power(along with Gorbachev by the end of his career.) If the West didn't try to interfere in literally ANY left leaning government, we wouldn't have insane right-wingers like Putin. You think without NATO interference in the USSR, people like Yeltsin or Putin would still come into power?

Also El Lazaro, it's really hilarious you think Marxism and fascism is the same and that Russia is in anyway pro-communist.

It’s hilarious that you think Russia is Communist, unless you’re just supporting them because you love fascism, capitalism, bourgeois nationalism, and colonialism.

[Aguaria Major]

You don't have to support NATO, but when NATO is the only thing keeping Ukraine alive, and you're trashing NATO in the war thread, honestly what conclusion do you expect people to draw?

NATO is the only thing keeping Ukraine alive?

What?

Hell, the Russian army is so incompetent that when they reach 1 mile of ground in a village thats already bombed, they consider it a "massive" victory. Also, NATO is the reason WHY Ukraine is in this situation, as if for decades they didn't support the increasing liberalization and capitulations to the West in the USSR. NATO allies LOOOVED Yeltsin, and many countries within NATO had no problem at all trying to work with Putin at times. Sure, NATO always saw Russia as a threat, but they'd rather have an anti-communist Russia, which the oligarchs did.

NATO is a military organization, and its command plays no role in interfering with other nations' economies.

These are criticisms of the West, my friend; liberal capitalist nations would've still tried to interfere with Russia's economy for their own gain even if NATO disbanded the instant the USSR dissolved.

What the continued existence of NATO after that has done though, is prevented most of Eastern Europe from falling back under Russia's sphere of influence, which is far better for pretty much all of them than the alternative. Now, you can argue all you want that this is still bad, as they're just under Western/US influence instead. That's a fair point. But here's the thing:

in order for the people of Eastern Europe to willingly reject NATO protection, the alternative has to be better than being under Western influence. And as long as Russia exists in its current form, that will never be the case. This invasion has confirmed that fact and then some.

If you want NATO to end or for Eastern Europe to no longer be under Western influence, then focus on ending fascism in Russia, making it a democracy, and providing poverty relief to its citizens, first and foremost. That means supporting Russian resistance movements against Putin and the government there in general.

Also: Western military aid (particularly in the form of intelligence) has been a major reason why the Russians have fared so poorly. How do you think Ukraine would be performing right now if they didn't have HIMARS to blow up Russian ammo depots, or US intelligence to tell them where their advances and artillery strikes in the early stages of the war would be coming, for example? If you recall, Ukraine just barely kept them from taking Kyiv in the beginning.

What you're doing is arguing that because your diabetes medications/procedures have prevented you from dying, that you should clearly stop taking them, because the diabetes was clearly not able to kill you from the start.

[Urkennalaid]

They helped make Putin gain power(along with Gorbachev by the end of his career.) If the West didn't try to interfere in literally ANY left leaning government, we wouldn't have insane right-wingers like Putin. You think without NATO interference in the USSR, people like Yeltsin or Putin would still come into power?

Also El Lazaro, it's really hilarious you think Marxism and fascism is the same and that Russia is in anyway pro-communist.

It’s hilarious that you think Russia is Communist, unless you’re just supporting them because you love fascism, capitalism, bourgeois nationalism, and colonialism.

Ah yes I love capitalism, unlike you, who wants to ban Marxism parties and have NATO invade...Russia?

[Tarsonis]

Yes. because as incompetent as Russia is, without weapons, training, and other supplies provided by NATO, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago.



And that makes Putin invading Ukraine NATO's fault how?

They helped make Putin gain power(along with Gorbachev by the end of his career.) If the West didn't try to interfere in literally ANY left leaning government, we wouldn't have insane right-wingers like Putin. You think without NATO interference in the USSR, people like Yeltsin or Putin would still come into power?

Also El Lazaro, it's really hilarious you think Marxism and fascism is the same and that Russia is in anyway pro-communist.

You're making a big leap there. that's like saying if Matthew Perry hasn't opened Tokyo Harbor, the Atomic Bomb never would have been dropped on Hiroshima. I mean, technically sure, but you're glossing over a hell of a lot.

[Kubra]

NATO is the only thing keeping Ukraine alive?

What?

Hell, the Russian army is so incompetent that when they reach 1 mile of ground in a village thats already bombed, they consider it a "massive" victory.

Yes. because as incompetent as Russia is, without weapons, training, and other supplies provided by NATO, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago.

Also, NATO is the reason WHY Ukraine is in this situation, as if for decades they didn't support the increasing liberalization and capitulations to the West in the USSR. NATO allies LOOOVED Yeltsin, and many countries within NATO had no problem at all trying to work with Putin at times. Sure, NATO always saw Russia as a threat, but they'd rather have an anti-communist Russia, which the oligarchs did.

And that makes Putin invading Ukraine NATO's fault how?

Oh, yeah, the thing iiiiiiis Russia kind of got a raw deal at the end of the cold war, and we added insult to injury by sending election campaign assistance to Yeltsin and helping portray him as "our man" despite him being, like, Yeltsin. Despite being Yeltsin. Just all of that Yeltsin-ness.
By the time our period of meddling ended the damage was done. Putin was in power and Russia was solidified as what it presently is, as was the resentment.
Obviously that doesn't mean "west did Russia dirty so go Putin", but it *does* suggest that lessons might have to be learned before the next go-about, and there is a case to be made that said lessons straight up have not been learned given the last two engagements in the middle east.

[Urkennalaid]

NATO is a military organization, and its command plays no role in interfering with other nations' economies.

These are criticisms of the West, my friend; liberal capitalist nations would've still tried to interfere with Russia's economy for their own gain even if NATO disbanded the instant the USSR dissolved.

What the continued existence of NATO after that has done though, is prevented most of Eastern Europe from falling back under Russia's sphere of influence, which is far better for pretty much all of them than the alternative. Now, you can argue all you want that this is still bad, as they're just under Western/US influence instead. That's a fair point. But here's the thing:

in order for the people of Eastern Europe to willingly reject NATO protection, the alternative has to be better than being under Western influence. And as long as Russia exists in its current form, that will never be the case. This invasion has confirmed that fact and then some.

If you want NATO to end or for Eastern Europe to no longer be under Western influence, then focus on ending fascism in Russia, making it a democracy, and providing poverty relief to its citizens, first and foremost. That means supporting Russian resistance movements against Putin and the government there in general.

Also: Western military aid (particularly in the form of intelligence) has been a major reason why the Russians have fared so poorly. How do you think Ukraine would be performing right now if they didn't have HIMARS to blow up Russian ammo depots, or US intelligence to tell them where their advances and artillery strikes in the early stages of the war would be coming, for example? If you recall, Ukraine just barely kept them from taking Kyiv in the beginning.

What you're doing is arguing that because your diabetes medications/procedures have prevented you from dying, that you should clearly stop taking them, because the diabetes was clearly not able to kill you from the start.

You're assuming NATO would ever willingly give up power. Hell, they are using the Ukrainian government as far as they can throw them.

[El Lazaro]

It’s hilarious that you think Russia is Communist, unless you’re just supporting them because you love fascism, capitalism, bourgeois nationalism, and colonialism.

Ah yes I love capitalism, unlike you, who wants to ban Marxism parties and have NATO invade...Russia?

The contradiction being…

[Tarsonis]

NATO is a military organization, and its command plays no role in interfering with other nations' economies.

These are criticisms of the West, my friend; liberal capitalist nations would've still tried to interfere with Russia's economy for their own gain even if NATO disbanded the instant the USSR dissolved.

What the continued existence of NATO after that has done though, is prevented most of Eastern Europe from falling back under Russia's sphere of influence, which is far better for pretty much all of them than the alternative. Now, you can argue all you want that this is still bad, as they're just under Western/US influence instead. That's a fair point. But here's the thing:

in order for the people of Eastern Europe to willingly reject NATO protection, the alternative has to be better than being under Western influence. And as long as Russia exists in its current form, that will never be the case. This invasion has confirmed that fact and then some.

If you want NATO to end or for Eastern Europe to no longer be under Western influence, then focus on ending fascism in Russia, making it a democracy, and providing poverty relief to its citizens, first and foremost. That means supporting Russian resistance movements against Putin and the government there in general.

Also: Western military aid (particularly in the form of intelligence) has been a major reason why the Russians have fared so poorly. How do you think Ukraine would be performing right now if they didn't have HIMARS to blow up Russian ammo depots, or US intelligence to tell them where their advances and artillery strikes in the early stages of the war would be coming, for example? If you recall, Ukraine just barely kept them from taking Kyiv in the beginning.

What you're doing is arguing that because your diabetes medications/procedures have prevented you from dying, that you should clearly stop taking them, because the diabetes was clearly not able to kill you from the start.

You're assuming NATO would ever willingly give up power. Hell, they are using the Ukrainian government as far as they can throw them.

Believe it or not there is such a thing as being too cynical

[Spirit of Hope]

NATO is a military organization, and its command plays no role in interfering with other nations' economies.

These are criticisms of the West, my friend; liberal capitalist nations would've still tried to interfere with Russia's economy for their own gain even if NATO disbanded the instant the USSR dissolved.

What the continued existence of NATO after that has done though, is prevented most of Eastern Europe from falling back under Russia's sphere of influence, which is far better for pretty much all of them than the alternative. Now, you can argue all you want that this is still bad, as they're just under Western/US influence instead. That's a fair point. But here's the thing:

in order for the people of Eastern Europe to willingly reject NATO protection, the alternative has to be better than being under Western influence. And as long as Russia exists in its current form, that will never be the case. This invasion has confirmed that fact and then some.

If you want NATO to end or for Eastern Europe to no longer be under Western influence, then focus on ending fascism in Russia, making it a democracy, and providing poverty relief to its citizens, first and foremost. That means supporting Russian resistance movements against Putin and the government there in general.

Also: Western military aid (particularly in the form of intelligence) has been a major reason why the Russians have fared so poorly. How do you think Ukraine would be performing right now if they didn't have HIMARS to blow up Russian ammo depots, or US intelligence to tell them where their advances and artillery strikes in the early stages of the war would be coming, for example? If you recall, Ukraine just barely kept them from taking Kyiv in the beginning.

What you're doing is arguing that because your diabetes medications/procedures have prevented you from dying, that you should clearly stop taking them, because the diabetes was clearly not able to kill you from the start.

You're assuming NATO would ever willingly give up power. Hell, they are using the Ukrainian government as far as they can throw them.

What power exactly does NATO have? Its a military alliance with basically no power outside of requiring states come to one another's defense and some efforts to standardize equipment. Requiring is also straining the meaning of the word because if Article 5 ever was really triggered and a nation decided to no show there isn't much NATO could do about it.

What is happening in Ukraine has very little to do with NATO "using" Ukraine and a lot to do with Ukraine getting aid from a bunch of NATO, and non NATO, member states. The EU has probably been more directly involved in helping Ukraine than NATO. What they get in exchange is a weakened Russia, which is what Ukraine wants anyways.

[Tarsonis]

Yes. because as incompetent as Russia is, without weapons, training, and other supplies provided by NATO, Ukraine would have lost a long time ago.



And that makes Putin invading Ukraine NATO's fault how?

Oh, yeah, the thing iiiiiiis Russia kind of got a raw deal at the end of the cold war, and we added insult to injury by sending election campaign assistance to Yeltsin and helping portray him as "our man" despite him being, like, Yeltsin. Despite being Yeltsin. Just all of that Yeltsin-ness.
By the time our period of meddling ended the damage was done. Putin was in power and Russia was solidified as what it presently is, as was the resentment.
Obviously that doesn't mean "west did Russia dirty so go Putin", but it *does* suggest that lessons might have to be learned before the next go-about, and there is a case to be made that said lessons straight up have not been learned given the last two engagements in the middle east.

And by that logic the US is responsible for Japanese Anime, because had we not toppled the fascist government and dropped two nukes in the process, Japanese culture never would have developed the art nor the affinity for dystopian futures.

You're welcome world.

[Aguaria Major]

NATO is a military organization, and its command plays no role in interfering with other nations' economies.

These are criticisms of the West, my friend; liberal capitalist nations would've still tried to interfere with Russia's economy for their own gain even if NATO disbanded the instant the USSR dissolved.

What the continued existence of NATO after that has done though, is prevented most of Eastern Europe from falling back under Russia's sphere of influence, which is far better for pretty much all of them than the alternative. Now, you can argue all you want that this is still bad, as they're just under Western/US influence instead. That's a fair point. But here's the thing:

in order for the people of Eastern Europe to willingly reject NATO protection, the alternative has to be better than being under Western influence. And as long as Russia exists in its current form, that will never be the case. This invasion has confirmed that fact and then some.

If you want NATO to end or for Eastern Europe to no longer be under Western influence, then focus on ending fascism in Russia, making it a democracy, and providing poverty relief to its citizens, first and foremost. That means supporting Russian resistance movements against Putin and the government there in general.

Also: Western military aid (particularly in the form of intelligence) has been a major reason why the Russians have fared so poorly. How do you think Ukraine would be performing right now if they didn't have HIMARS to blow up Russian ammo depots, or US intelligence to tell them where their advances and artillery strikes in the early stages of the war would be coming, for example? If you recall, Ukraine just barely kept them from taking Kyiv in the beginning.

What you're doing is arguing that because your diabetes medications/procedures have prevented you from dying, that you should clearly stop taking them, because the diabetes was clearly not able to kill you from the start.

You're assuming NATO would ever willingly give up power. Hell, they are using the Ukrainian government as far as they can throw them.

I mean, they did let France depart from the command structure in 1966, and made no efforts to force them back in. If the argument you're making is that NATO command will do everything in their power to ensure that the organization's member states never deviate from US doctrine or attempt to gain back any military sovereignty,

then that whole incident is very strong evidence against said argument.

They've also been letting Turkey actively defy their military doctrines by letting them purchase Russian S400 systems. And before you say, "but they put sanctions on Turkey for doing that",

no, the US did. None of the other member states did, and NATO command had nothing to do with it.

[Kubra]

Oh, yeah, the thing iiiiiiis Russia kind of got a raw deal at the end of the cold war, and we added insult to injury by sending election campaign assistance to Yeltsin and helping portray him as "our man" despite him being, like, Yeltsin. Despite being Yeltsin. Just all of that Yeltsin-ness.
By the time our period of meddling ended the damage was done. Putin was in power and Russia was solidified as what it presently is, as was the resentment.
Obviously that doesn't mean "west did Russia dirty so go Putin", but it *does* suggest that lessons might have to be learned before the next go-about, and there is a case to be made that said lessons straight up have not been learned given the last two engagements in the middle east.

And by that logic the US is responsible for Japanese Anime, because had we not toppled the fascist government and dropped two nukes in the process, Japanese culture never would have developed the art nor the affinity for dystopian futures.

You're welcome world.

This is pretty direct cause and effect tho, man. No second cousin twice removed stuff here, we meddled poorly and it directly blew up in our faces. I mean let's not even get started on Japan here, man. They didn't decide on quasi-fascism overnight.
I ain't saying don't meddle, lord no, I'm a good communists. Only, you know, meddle better if you're gonna do it, you feel? That's why it's good to practice the ol' hindsight.

[Picairn]

You do understand that the alternative to nuking Japan was operation Downfall, right?

why? japan was, to my knowledge, decimated at that point. they had no real way of counterattacking and a blockade could’ve ended their resistance.

If the US did a blockade instead the tankies and peaceniks would have cried about the millions of deaths from starvation. Blockade isn't a more "moral" way of ending the war with Japan just because it didn't involve vaporizing two cities in a flash.

[Kubra]

why? japan was, to my knowledge, decimated at that point. they had no real way of counterattacking and a blockade could’ve ended their resistance.

If the US did a blockade instead the tankies and peaceniks would have cried about the millions of deaths from starvation. Blockade isn't a more "moral" way of ending the war with Japan just because it didn't involve vaporizing two cities in a flash.

No they wouldn't have. Mostly because it was late in WW2 and basically nobody gave a shit about *anything* at this point, but more importantly yet also more minor death by things like artillery shells and malnutrition, totally conventional shit, basically no one gives a shit about these deaths unless they're seriously invested. It's often bad, but it's seriously true.

[Picairn]

And the Chinese peace plan is out: Chinese ambassador Li Hui pushed for "an immediate ceasefire" and let Russia keep its gains. Needless to say the "plan" is not welcomed.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And the Chinese peace plan is out: Chinese ambassador Li Hui pushed for "an immediate ceasefire" and let Russia keep its gains. Needless to say the "plan" is not welcomed.

How else do you get the international community onboard on your colonise Taiwan plan
<.< >.>

[Washington Resistance Army]

And the Chinese peace plan is out: Chinese ambassador Li Hui pushed for "an immediate ceasefire" and let Russia keep its gains. Needless to say the "plan" is not welcomed.

Wow I wonder why Ukraine wouldn't agree to this

[The Two Jerseys]

And the Chinese peace plan is out: Chinese ambassador Li Hui pushed for "an immediate ceasefire" and let Russia keep its gains. Needless to say the "plan" is not welcomed.

Wow I wonder why Ukraine wouldn't agree to this

Obviously because their warmongering NATO masters are forcing them to continue fighting, it's the only logical explanation...

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Imagine if, instead of continuing to stoke their longtime hobby in hypocrisy, the Chinese Foreign Ministry chose to abide by their own post-1991 "national sovereignty is a sacred principle of international law" and "the relations between a state and its own citizens is not anyone else's business" lines that they love shoving against other people.

Like, they wouldn't have to actually do anything. Nobody expects them to join in the anti-Russia sanctions. Just make a couple of formal-sounding statements to the effect that they are committed to peace in Eastern Europe as outlined in the Budapest Memorandum and that they consider Ukraine's treatment of the Russian-speaking communities of the southeast to be Ukraine's internal affairs that Russia has neither right nor responsibility to intervene in. Heck, if they want they can even make anti-American hay over it by pointing at things like the US sanctions against Belarus.

You know, something other than cheerily taking all the diplomatic gains they've made in Europe during the Trump years, and then setting it all on fire.

[Corrian]

If supporting NATO and the US against Russia, against their invasion of a sovereign country who just wants to defend themselves makes me a warmonger, then I guess I'm now a proud warmonger.

In fact, I think the fact I'm anti-warmongers is exactly why I support NATO and the US against Russia. But apparently that's a hard concept to grasp for some people.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Here comes the counter-offensive

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

What’s going on, Tankies defending Nazis?

Oh wait…

[Great Britain eke Northern Ireland]

What’s going on, Tankies defending Nazis?

Oh wait…

Communism and Naziism go hand in hand. The Nazi-Soviet pact before 1941 is key, and for all the talk of fighting Naziism, the Soviet Union didn’t fight them because they were Nazis, they fought them because they invaded their territory.

[Dakran]

Here comes the counter-offensive

As funny as it would be to see a complete rout of the Russian forces out of Ukraine, I feel like its a pipe dream.

Still...

[Corrian]

Here comes the counter-offensive

They also posted this