Just an endless slew of clickbait "China bad" headlines all the time. Really makes you wonder about if there is some sort of systemic problem with western media.
me casually just responding to NAFOids that I get paid 50CNY an hour to :anti-cracker-aktion:
If you want to see consent being manufactured, go into the Telegraph and click through to the journalist's
post historyarticle historyIt's going to be hilarious in a year or so when we'll have LLM bots churning these types of articles out even at respected news outlets, and all critics of this narrative will still get smeared as being bots themselves
China: sends Russia six helicopters (before the war), some children's toys, a box of consumer-grade hunting scopes, and metal. They are the bad guys who are prolonging the war.
NATO: sends Ukraine weapons and military vehicles worth more than China's entire military budget, and provides training and logistics support. They are the good guys trying to end the war.
The liberals only read the titles and then come straight to the comment sections so they don't actually realise any of this unless you spell it out for them.
Does your definition of "attack" include locking people in a church and burning them alive? How about sponsoring Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to murder and rape people for seaking a language? Shelling cities and civilians in defiance of international cease fire treaties?
I don't mean to get in an argument, because that isn't at all productive.
I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?
I wonder though - if Russia hadn't illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?
If Ukrainian neo-Nazis hadn't trapped ethnic Russians in a building and burned them alive, would Russia have invaded?
My point is: there are no good guys in this conflict. Just two bad guys duking it out, with regular schmucks like you and me getting murdered for no reason. Anything that prolongs the conflict is bad.
For the record - I agree that burning people alive in a building is bad, and war should be avoided if possible.
You didn't really answer my question though. Why do the resistance groups exist in the first place?
We've got a document that lays out the timeline in some detail, but I can't find it right now.
The short version is that this is a continuation of a very, very long conflict between the western powers and Russia for control of Russia's resources. Like in a broad sense this geopolitical conflict as been going on for hundreds of years - Europe and now the USA want access to Russia's resources and to do that they have to get rid of the government currently in charge of Russia. In the past this was all kinds of great power bullshit, Napoleon's attempt to invade Moscow. Then it was the Russian civil war, where all the Western powers invaded Russia to try to stop the Reds, then WWII when the Nazis and their allies wanted to conquer everything east of them, exterminate or enslave the Slavs, and do Westward Expansion 2.0: Eastward Edition. Then the Cold War, where NATO was formed to counter and eventually destroy the Eastern Block. Well, 1991 happened, the USSR was destroyed, A few coups and murders and the shock doctrine ensured that the capitalists could loot everything, but ultimately the West didn't get the complete control of Russian territory and resources they wanted. Too many former Soviet Oligarchs and gangsters got in the way and control of the region stayed more or less in local hands - Russian Oligarchs in Russia, Ukrainian Oligarchs in Ukraine, and so on. NATO didn't disband after 1991, and didn't let Russia join when Putin tried a few times,because NATO's purpose is conquest of Russia and they hadn't pulled that off yet. NATO started annexing countries and moving it's borders towards Russia, forward positioning troops and weapons, and gradually encircling Russia on it's populous Western borders. When NATO started talking about moving in to Georgia the Russian's responded, invaded Georgia, and put an end to that. At some point later NATO decided to move on Ukraine, take control, and use it as a proxy to weaken Russia. They used the same tactic by supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan decades prior, and they'd used it in the middle east and few other places. The basic program is - destabilize a country, flood it with weapons, then let their neighbors bleed themselves dry trying to contain the insurgency. In pursuit of this NATO deployed a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis they'd saved after WWII for exactly this purpose and were gradually able to expand their influence in the country. 2013, the President of Ukraine doesn't want to sign a shitty deal with Europe both because it would fuck over Ukraine and it would fuck over Ukraine's trade with Russia, and the Nazis, almost entirely headquartered in Western Ukraine, use this as an excuse to take control of popular unrest and stage a coup. It gets nasty, Ukrainian Nationalists burn a bunch of Russian speaking Ukrainians to death, they throw the president out, the new coup government immediately passes laws making the previously legal Russian language illegal. Out East in the regions where most Ukrainians speak Russian, they see a bunch of Nazis who want them exterminated couping the government, they see the new coup government passing laws against their language, they say "Fuck this, we know what comes next" and take up arms demanding that Kiev grant them autonomy - some government autonomy, guarantees on their right to speak their language and protect their culture, basic shit. Kiev says no, tries to send the army in to Donbass to crush them, the army tells Kiev "Fuck you". Kiev isn't giving up so they arm all the Nazis and send them in to Donbass and they start murdering people. This turns in to a civil war. During the civil war NATO moves in. They start re-structuring, training, and arming the Ukrainian military loyal to Kiev. They stockpile all kinds of weapons and shit. The Nazis are rotating back from the front lines with combat experience and are getting integrated in to army units while their civilian Nazi counterparts are getting more and more control over western Ukraine's government, civic institutions, and culture. This goes on for years, Ukrainians kill thousands of Ukrainians. Meanwhile Russia, who doesn't want any of this shit happening in their neighborhood, is trying to get some kind of peace negotiations going to stop the conflict and stabilize Ukraine before it falls apart and turns in to a failed state. Well, Ukraine and a bunch of NATO goverments say yes, we'll talk, lets resolve this, then the Ukrainian Nazis break all the ceasefires and shitcan the peace talks. Happens twice, the accords were called Minsk I and Minsk II. We later find out that Germany and France, who were acting as restaurants of the peace talks, never had any intention of fulfilling the peace conditions and were just buying time to arm Ukraine. Eventually it's 2020 or something. Ukrainians are sick of this, they don't want to be at war with their own countrymen, they don't want to get dragged in to war with Russia because of Nazi psychos, so they vote for Zelensky. Zelensky's a very charismatic guy, well known from television, speaks Ukrainian and Russia. He runs on a peace platform, says he's going to uphold the cease fire and start negotiations. Well, once he takes office he goes out to the front and tells the guys at the front to shot shelling Donbass. The guys who are running the Front are Nazi fanatics, they tell him he's not in charge and he can go fuck himself and they keep shelling. So now Zelensky knows how Ukraine really works, he starts working with NATO and the Nationalists as basically a cheer-leader for Kiev and Galacia's agenda. Doesn't really have any power but he looks good on TV. This whole thing finally comes to a head when someone decides that the Ukrainian army, with all it's NATO training and equipment and guns and NATO provided Nazis, is ready to go crush Donbass. There's a big build-up - Ukraine is mobilizing it's army to go in to the east of the country and fight the Donbass republics plus whatever Specops guys Russia has sent in there. Russia is mobilizing part of it's army at the Ukrainian border and making threatening noises.
Now, it's February of 2022. Russia has it's troops on Ukraine's border. Ukrainian troops are moving East in to Donbass. Putin is making threatening noises, but no one thinks he'll actually pull the trigger and cross the border. Well, for whatever reason, and it's still unclear what he was thinking, he pulls the trigger. He claims that he's doing it to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians from the Banderite Nazis who intend to genocide them (probably in the driving them from their homes sense rather than the extermination of all men, women, and children sense but who knows with Nazis?). That might even be true. But other reasons are that he was finally sick of putting up with NATOs bullshit after decades of post-cold-war hostility, or he had a bad understanding of the situation and thought he could win a decisive victory with that swift attack on Kiev, or maybe he thought people in Ukraine were more angry with their government than they were and would demand some kind of end of hostilities? Who knows, high level commanders and presidents aren't always very bright and aren't always getting good intel. Whatever happened, Russia made us all look like idiots by invading (pretty much no one, including me, thought he'd actually do it), and now there was a hot war between NATO forces and Russian forces, except everyone inside NATO pretends that it's between Ukraine and Russia.
So, that's the very, very, very short, basically no details, rough sketch version of what lead up to the war. I didn't even mention stuff like the activities of Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and the US, or all of Russia's security concerns, or the weird fucked up relationship between the Russiand government and the US government, or how Russia didn't really invade Crimea because the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and tons of support personnel were already stationed in Crimea so they really just changed the flags, or the role of propaganda in NATOs decisions on which weapons to send and which weapons to withhold, or what Trump's trade war bullshit likely had to do with all this, or a trillion other things.
Suffice to say, there's a lot of history behind this conflict. And since it's very unlikely either side will definitively win there will probably be more wars in this on-going geopolitical struggle between whoever is in charge of the west and whoever is in charge of Russia in the future, even if NATO and the Russian federation both collapse tomorrow. There's no way we're going to make it through the 21st century without intense wars over the vast unexploited resources of Siberia.
Either way, that's the very short summary.
average leftist meme
but
, this is basically the backbone of a potential essay on why we are against NATO in this conflict and why Putin isn't Hitler reincarnatedalso putin isn't hitler because he has no stated ambition to wipe out any ethnic groups
I refuse to engage with any explanation of a complex historical or Geopolitical situation that cannot be boiled down to "Russia bad".
nah I'm just not going to read a novel to respond to you. I'm giving other people I disagree with reasonable replies. Your reply is unreasonable engage with though. Feel free to try again though with a more reasonable response.
I didn't even post that. Very reasonable of you to not pay attention to basic details like who you're responding to.
Almost as if you're simply putting on a facade of open-mindedness to cover for he fact that you will not engage with any ideas more complex than "Russia bad, NATO good".
Ah, sorry, you are right about getting the person wrong. The way lemmy is laid out on the app I'm using doesn't show the post before you, so I just assumed you were the same person.
In any case, that doesn't change what I said. I'm not going to read a novel then dissect it piece by piece when the premise of the entire post is "going to war and forcefully occupying a neighboring country can be justified."
I'm not saying all of Russia is bad, by the way. I admire Russia for a lot of reasons. The decision to invade their neighbor, however, cannot be justified, in the same way that the vast majority of the United States' wars cannot be justified.
that post was maybe 1500 words to summarize 100+ years of regional conflict with special attention on the last 10 years written in plain language. no special jargon or references to theoretical concepts. if that's a "novel" for you, it definitely explains your grasp of this situation and affirms the critique that you are willfully ignorant and incapable of analysis beyond "russia bad." and this is why people make fun of libs like you. many libs smugly dismiss conservatives as having "simple/childlike" worldviews and value systems. then they promptly adopt their own perfectly mirrored positions and petulantly stick their fingers in their ears like you're doing here.
By the time you took to read the other posts and wrote the replies saying "not gonna read that" you could easily just read that.
I read it. Same answer I've been giving the whole time still applies. Nothing justifies an invasion and the murder of thousands of civilians. The majority of the Ukrainian people support continuing to defend their homes, including in the eastern regions. It is up to them to decide what they want to do. If they want to concede, they will do that. It's pretty simple.
Anyway, I'm done responding now. Good luck with your lives.
Ukrainians were couped every decade to make them hate Russians. 1991, 2004, 2014, and note how Zelensky was elected as a peace candidate, to stop the civil war. Instead there was a military buildup to invasion and multiple ceasefire breaches. In the meantime between those coups, Ukrainians seemed to gravitate towards at least neutrality and peace. Ukrainians will have been repeatedly violated by USA and now they are dying for Uncle Sam imperial interest while their country is being peacemeal sold for the peanuts and the war fervor as in every war ever fry their brains.
In any case, that doesn't change what I said. I'm not going to read a novel then dissect it piece by piece when the premise of the entire post is "going to war and forcefully occupying a neighboring country can be justified."
US Civil War, WWII.
Here's my response. I think it's reasonable enough.
spoiler
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
It's like one page. You asked for an explanation of what's going on. Take it or leave it. Sorry it's not formatted very well I had to type it on the fly at like 3am.
Guys you can't justify a war with hundreds of thousands of deaths where one side is sending missiles at civilian buildings on the daily, it's just not going to happen.
it's more complicated than that and you would understand why we think so if you bothered to read the explanation
Technically it's artillery, but I thought we weren't talking about the civil war in Donbas?
So you're not actually interested in learning anything.
How does that square up with you thinking your worldview is correct?
Like how do you make that work?
In 2014, the Ukrainian government was overthrown and the new government shifted towards Western alignment while banning opposition parties. Many people in Ukraine, especially in the east, have cultural ties to Russia and disagreed with the change, but were left with no means of having their voices heard because they were cut out of the democratic process, and that's why the resistance groups exist in the first place.
Ah, by argue I meant something along the lines of "have an upset and angry discussion." I disagree with some of the premise of what he said though, so I am going to push back on that.
history started the day russia invaded and nothing happened in ukraine between then and the collapse of the USSR.
Good point never thought of it like that before. I love Bill Clinton, Neoliberalism is radical. Did you know he played the saxophone? So cool. Slava USA
Ukraine violated the ceasefire and attacked the DPR and LPR days before the invasion happened:
Show
Show
Show
Show
I think my question was misunderstood.
Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.
I asked "who attacked who" because to me, it seems pretty clear that Russia, a dictatorship whose government has a history of human rights violations and disregard for human life, is doing a bad thing when they invade a neighboring country and start shooting missiles at civilian homes on a daily basis for a year and half.
Could you explain how this is not a clear "Russia doing bad thing, we should help Ukraine" situation?
NATO is mostly responsible for the dead Ukrainians. Ukraine has no reason to fight this war. If they lose, fine, the Russian part gets renamed and a higher minimum wage. Only rich assholes lose out. If Ukraine wins they get dead sons and burned schools but the US oil companies are happy.
It is pretty clear Ukraine shouldn't be fighting this war for the US companies.
What percentage of Ukrainians support defending their country?
Should it be their decision whether to keep fighting?
If it were up to Ukrainians to collectively decide whether or not to continue the conflict, Zelensky would not have canceled the elections for his position later this year.
The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for elections to be held during periods of martial law, which was declared at the start of the war.
If there is ever a good time to declare martial law, being invaded by a neighboring country might qualify as a justifiable time.
In any case, it's constitutional, but Ukrainian political process isn't what we are here to talk about.
Fundamentally, I agree with you - If the majority of Ukrainians were to decide they don't want the war to continue, the war should stop. The number show, however, that the people are not ready to give up.
The constitution of one of the most corrupt states in Europe has a mechanism whereby the executive can arbitrarily suspend elections?
Shocking.
You don't get to set the topic. If you don't want to discuss it then nobody can compell you to do so. Don't pretend it's irrelevant to the topic you've chosen to engage with just because it's inconvenient for your arugment to engage with it.
No, it's definitely a side topic.
The topic is technically "did China supply Russia with weapons etc?" But the topic we've been talking about for a bit now is "is the invasion justified," not "is the Ukrainian constitution constructed in an ideal way."
The ideal-ness of the constitution has no bearing on whether the invasion was justified, because invading your neighbor and killing thousands of civilians, even if their constitution is not completely ideal, cannot be justified.
I'm officially announcing now that I am going to sleep. Goodnight, and I hope you can all do some reflecting on whether invading neighboring countries is good or bad. I'm done responding to all of this.
I hope you can all do some reflecting on whether invading neighboring countries is good or bad.
No reflection needed. Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin.
'm done responding to all of this.
Oh no, the topic decider is gone. However will we go on?
Dead people don't get a vote. People lining up to die are even less trust worthy about their choices.
While humorous, that isn't actually how polls work. I'd suggest looking up the statistics. The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.
Does that mean that the majority of Ukrainians support fighting the war for the sake of US companies? Or could there be something else they are fighting for?
They are fighting for honor glory and pride. However they will die for it and get none. While all the worst people in mu country will buy a new jetski off the profits they made from the ordeal
Is it possible they are fighting to protect their freedoms and their families? Honor and glory is nice and all but I'd imagine that most of them aren't Game of Thrones characters.
No, none of that is at stake. Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine. So if they cared about their families, especially the people in the region in question, they would be slfighting for russia.
I have to push back on "none of that is at stake."
When Russia sends missiles and drones into Kiev that hit civilian buildings, homes, and kill regular people on a daily/weekly basis, is the message they are receiving "Russia has better labor rights than Ukraine?"
They are at war. That is what happens during war. They are only at stake because there is a war on. If the war stopped those would go away. And as Russia would likely increase thr labor standards in territory under their controll things would improve on every front for the lives of the average Ukrainian if the didn't do the war.
The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.
Russian-supported polls can't be trusted, but the targets of 8 years of pogroms definitely aren't be coerced by Ukraine!
Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.
nato is willing to fight to the last ukranian, going so far as scuttling peace talks, which you can read about in a ukranian Pravda article about Boris Johnson's visit.
Ukraine to defend themselves.
Do you think the people of eastern ukraine have a right to defend themselves?
I understood. It's an unserious question, so I gave an unserious answer. China isn't militarily supporting Russia. They sent some kids toys and the same raw materials they exported everywhere anyway.
Ah, I see what happened. I didn't address the China part of your original question because I actually agree with you there. They aren't militarily supporting Russia based on this article. I don't see why China would do that, since it wouldn't really benefit them.
I was addressing part 2 of your comment, where you implied that NATO is doing a bad thing by supporting Ukraine. Unless I misunderstood - I assumed "They are the good guys trying to end the war" was sarcasm.
You're responding to the user who refuses to spend five minutes reading a reply, I think you've misplaced your estimate of intelligence or reason.
Yes because giving some one the ability to defend their country, and supporting an invasion have the same moral implications
they sent metal metal. famously russia lacks any source of metals so they needed that for the war
In the Vanilla version yes .. but this is a more advanced situation ...
Show
Show
Show
Liberals taking pride in being so heavily propagandised is the same as workers taking pride in being overworked and underpaid.
Yes, if you go to aliexpress, you could buy Chinese made helicopter, drones and metals. Thank you the telegraph for the basic info
Like, the yank was so mad at Ukrainian keep using Chinese drone, that they force them to stop buying it and use their expensive drone.
The Pentagon is mad that Congress forced them to stop buying Chinese drones. Apparently there are no available replacements in some categories and even where there are, they are many times more expensive.
australia doing the same shit
Banned from tendering in the National Broadband Network in 2012, banned from participating in the 5G network in 2018, called for removal of surveillance/security cameras in 2018, funded undersea cables in the pacific to block Huawei in 2018, purchased Digicel to prevent Chinese involvement in 2021
US, UK, CAN & AU, 5eyes has been frothing over this for a while
The $2.1 billion deal to acquire and run Digicel Pacific is being funded largely by the government, which will provide $1.9 billion toward the acquisition.
Telstra said it would contribute $360 million and own 100 per cent of the company's ordinary equity.
"Australian officials were concerned about whether a Chinese company or potentially a Chinese state-owned entity might look to buy Digicel's Pacific arm and there were some geopolitical and geostrategic concerns about a Chinese company owning a major telecommunication company in the Pacific region, which is of course so close to Australia," said Amanda Watson, an expert in Pacific communications at the Australian National University.
That's especially since Digicel Pacific uses a 4,700km undersea cable from Sydney that was largely funded by the Australian government in 2018 in an effort to prevent PNG and the Solomon Islands from contracting Huawei for the project.
Ahh my bad, that was 3 years earlier instead
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-25/telstra-digicel-pacific-telecommunications-deal-finalised/100564976
Somehow on my phone in :estonia-burning: I can access RT and came across this article where the US was coping at South Africa to abandon it's partnerships with Huawei because "you need to use :lmayo::amerikkka: technologies". Anyways, South Africa told :amerikkka: to :PIGPOOPBALLS:
I love watching Congress fuck over the Pentagon. Just the worst people in the world slapfighting over fake money. Probably a bad idea to let hundreds of lead huffing jet ski dealers whose only qualification is buying more TV add time than their opponents run a global empire.
My favorite instance of this was the US Army begging congress not to buy more Abrams tanks because they were already too expensive to maintain but congress overruling them and ordering them to buy more to keep the factories open.
"Please, whatver you do just don't make us-
"-Buy more Abrams, great idea, yes!"
That's gotta be in some cyberpunk book somewhere. Especially if they start giving different ratings to the equipment and flaming each other over it.
Focusing on Chinese drones that end up in Russia while completely ignoring the Chinese drones that end up in the Ukraine is some cherry picking I expected from the Telegraph. Products and components are made in China, which shouldn't come as a surprise.
Show
This is referring to consumer level drones too right? Like DJI stuff?
Ukraine only has consumer drones, I don't think they have any military drones
I thought they had some for some reason
People need to start distinguishing between the little quadcopters you can buy at walmart, and fucking reaper drones. Headlines like "China is selling drones to Russia" makes it seem like it isn't a $150 drone bought off fucking aliexpress
That lack of distinction is 100% on purpose since China dominates the consumer drones market and they're so versatile and capable that countries all over the world including the US buy DJI drones for military operations
Can blame China for giving every country "drones"
china dominates the consumer goods market, period. by these standards the chinese have been supplying every NATO war for the past 20 years.
the chinese have been supplying every NATO war for the past 20 years.
smh revisionism has really gone too far
They do. They have Bayraktar drones.
I do agree that the lack of distinction is kind of stupid.
However, a year later, nearly all of them are believed to have been shot down by Russian forces.
The remaining killer drones are now reduced to reconnaissance duties, an expert said.
This would mean they still have some.
Pretty sure they have Baryraktar drones, purchased from Turkey, among other military drones.
The Telegraph is the only one reporting this, we're supposed to believe a sensationalist conservative tabloid?
well if you trade metal to Russia, and metal goes in weapons, you are basically handing them weapons of mass destruction if you think about it
It looks like the data is from Malfar Group which dubs itself as open source intelligence (whatever that means). Looking at their website, it is all Ukraine related. That's fine in and of itself but it should be noted by them or The Telegraph. But The Telegraph is not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity.
One Chinese company sent 1,000 drones to Russia in the two months before the war, according to figures compiled by Molfar Global, an open source research organisation. That firm, Shantou Honghu Plastics, describes itself as a wholesaler of children’s toys on its website and social media profiles.
They are toy drones lmao. Yeah they seem upset alright.
They exercise editorial control and they exercise it vigorously, so when they report on something it’s for a reason.
Does your comment intend to imply they’re just presenting some economic data points or something? It seems kind of inane to pretend that they don’t have a lens where this is a bad thing. That China bad etc etc.
My comment was intending to imply they are not actually upset about this and are reporting on things that will make them money.
It will make them money from readers being upset about it. The author specializes in anti-China outrage bait.
My comment had no purpose other than to be pedantic for it's own sake because that is how the internet has taught me that intelligence is demonstrated and I want to appear intelligent
Wow neat
Beijing issued a 12-point “peace statement” earlier this year that rehashed its position and did not propose any solutions to ending the war.
You obviously didn't read it then...
Thank you for sharing the link comrade. I should have done it, but I had just 420 blazed it and it would have taken forever for me to find. No 69 unfortunately 🥲
It contains points such as "sovereignty should be respected" but no proposal as to how to make Russia respect Ukraine's sovereignty.
Because it's about ending the war, not getting Russian leadership to subscribe to an abstract and unevenly defined principle.
So how does China intend to end the war, respecting Ukraine's sovereignty, without getting Russian leadership to subscribe to the said principle?
Idk, sounds like something that should be hashed out in peace talks, preferably done after calling a ceasefire
A ceasefire at this point would benefit Russia militarily.
And "should"? "preferably"? Are you going to bend reality by the force of moral imperatives?
Russia is unwilling to hold peace talks that involve Ukraine being sovereign and having its territorial integrity intact. According to the Chinese list itself, it's Russia that needs to make the next step towards peace -- by fucking off to behind its own borders.
My brother in Christ, Ukraine is unwilling to hold peace talks with Ukraine being sovereign. The last time they were close to a peace deal Boris Johnson flew his orangutan ass into Ukraine like Marry Poppins and killed the peace deal. Sovereign nations really do get to have Boris Johnson have final say in all decision making.
Ukraine is absolutely willing to talk about peace, thing is Russia has to leave the country first.
And as you're bringing up the Brits, are you acquainted with the term "appeasement"?
Ukraine is absolutely willing to talk about peace, thing is Russia has to leave the country first.
Liberals understand what peace talks are challenge, any percent (impossible)
No way he has any influence in a foreign country, Boris Johnson can't even influence his own hair. Britain is like irrelevant on a global scale.
Britain is still relevant in Europe, even if they're no longer able to influence Asia/Africa/the Americas.
How? They had their influence in the EU but not anymore. I can't think of any influence they have currently.
A ceasefire at this point would benefit Russia militarily.
It would also benefit the people of Ukraine who are currently living in an active warzone.
This should not be difficult to understand.
You're obviously very horny for the war to continue, and you only live a few hours away.
Why wouldn't you join up if it's so important to you?
I'm very keen on the war to end quickly. I've said so from the start. Given that the war is not going to end before Russia loses, there's no other option than to support Ukraine. On top of that it's Ukraine which has the righteous cause.
I've had a gazillion of hexbears try to dunk on me here for a day now, and none of you had any better idea on how to end the war quickly. The best I've heard bogs down to "invite the Kremlin for talks and sing Kumba Ya". That's wishful thinking.
So, pray tell, what is your idea on how to end the war quickly?
So go there and fight. If this is really what you believe in, then why not?
Or do you think that Ukrainian lives are a worthy sacrifice for the "righteous cause" but your own is not?
No Kumba Ya. Go to Ukraine and fight. Bleed for it.
It's their own righteous cause and they continue to fight so they think it's worth it, yes. If the people actually wanted to give up they'd say so.
Who are you to decide such things for them?
When the Taliban rolled over Afghanistan I wasn't there, saying "But you should fight for your freedom!" -- nah, people have to want it on their own accord. In that case all I could was to throw up my hands in despair, seeing a country fall from occupation into tyranny. Ukraine? Least I can do is defend it morally against vulgar pseudo-pacifists like you, who'd rather see Ukrainians brutalised and exploited by the Russian Mafia.
China should declare a policy that they will sell to Russia whatever the US or NATO sells to the separatists on Taiwan Island.
China is widely suspected of supplying Russia with equipment and materials to support their war, however no-one has adduced anything concrete to support that theory so far.
The article itself doesn't cite much in the way of sources or evidence, other than mentioning a report by Molfar, the open source intelligence agency. Molfar has published reports on the same topic in the past, but there hasn't been anything recently.
If the Telegraph had new information or evidence they would be shouting a lot louder than this. This is most likely them covering up for a quiet day by dredging up some old rumours and repackaging them as news.
In other news, China is also widely suspected of supplying Ukraine with equipment and materials to support their war.
Turns out, China isn't a single entity but a bunch of companies that want to make a whole ton of money by profiteering off of war.
The CCP doesn't care about the conflict so long as they can claim neutrality.
Holopoint stuff is good for the price point. It's cheap, it's reasonably reliable and mostly works. If you're on a budget you could do worse.
A holosun aimpoint mashup brings to mind automatic1111 versions of guns.
wining
