Biden is a lame duck president with NO PUBLIC MANDATE and subterranean approval rating, he got ousted by his own party before the election for being mentally incapacitated, his defense against a Justice Department inquiry is he's too old and senile, his party just got BTFO in a national election. No NATO or NATO proxies have ever launched long range missiles into Russia in living memory. How is this guy brump fit for office

STOP EATING CRAYONS AND DO YOUR FUCKING JERB. "Senile old man sends young people to WW3 out of spite"

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.

    (Yes, I know history didn't start in 2022. There is an undeniable discontinuous shift in the nature of the conflict at that point though.)

    Russia has been fully aware of the dynamics of supply between Ukraine and the USA, all along. Nothing has changed besides rockets that can go somewhat farther. If it's not a nuke and not a military alliance, it doesn't draw more powers in, it just makes the war more costly.

    When one does a special military operation on another country's undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.

    • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
      ·
      1 month ago

      “Both the imperialists and anti-imperialists are bad! If you don’t like escalating imperialism then why do you support anti-imperialists??!”

      I’m so tired of you western chauvinists in leftoid clothing

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      1 month ago

      You are ignoring that this is proxy war, and by so doing you are confusing the entire perspective.

      If this was not a proxy war, Russia would invade Ukraine because Ukraine took unilateral action to threaten Russia's national security.

      In such a situation, the USA would not be sending the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget to Ukraine. Russia would stop Ukraine from its unilateral action and the war would end.

      Instead, we have the US acting through NATO acting through Ukraine threatening Russian national security. Russia attacks Ukraine not because of Ukraine's unilateral action but because of the actions of the USA through Ukraine as a proxy. This proxy war remains a proxy war so long as the USA does not act against Russia directly. If the USA acts against Russia directly it becomes a direct military conflict between Russia and the USA.

      The USA is salami slicing this conflict, attempting to find the point at which it can no longer the escalate the threat to Russia without Russian retaliation.

      Ukrainian emancipation was truncated by the right-wing color revolution that was managed by the USA. Russia's invasion has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty and everything to do with Ukraine being a proxy of the West.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
        ·
        1 month ago

        The game of chicken was inherent since January 2022, arguably even before. Ukraine as a state outside of either regional defense treaty and situated in between both has pointed towards increasing involvement/meddling of the regional powers.

        A war being in progress involving a country from one bloc is an opening for the other bloc to conduct indirect opposition. This was known from the start of the SMO, and arguably accounted for from the same time too.

        A few missiles hitting a depot in Bryansk is not going to change the course of the war. If it was going to, you'd expect that the USA would have encouraged this to be done sooner. It hasn't broken any continuity woth the rest of the conflict, and isn't going to change much besides maybe a proportionally tiny amount more of destruction on the Russian side of the border. That was my point.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          30 days ago

          If you don't know the history of this game of chicken, then I don't know why you're in here trying to argue. This game of chicken has been ongoing since shortly after WW2.

          After the dismantling of the USSR, this game of chicken is pretty clear cut - the USA has been marching a transnational nuclear military staffed and led by originally by Third Reich officers that has as one of its primary mandates the maintenance of fascist partisan groups throughout Europe to use against any leftist government and also against Russia and Russian regional hegemony.

          The game of chicken has always been a proxy conflict and neither side has dared allow an advanced weapon to be used against the other side's sovereign territory.

          The use of ATACMS against Russian territory is a net new escalation in this 80-year game of chicken. Will it change the course of the war is not the question. It is an incremental escalation of intent that either is appeased or is rebuffed. And Russia has demonstrated since 2014 that it has abandoned the 100% appeasement strategy.

          As we all know, appeasement doesn't really work, so Russia now has a serious problem on their hands with ATACMS landing in their territory. It doesn't need to be tactically transformative for it to be a strategic watershed.

    • 666PeaceKeepaGirl [any, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If you see a problem with a country being able to respond, in kind, to attacks by a state actor against it, then you do not stand for emancipation or egalitarianism.

      States. Do. Not. Have. Rights. This should go without saying on this site. The actions of the gov't of Ukraine, or more relevantly of the United States in support of Ukraine, are justified only insofar as they are beneficial to actual human beings. Risking escalation here pretty clearly fails that criterion. The situation on the ground right now is that the front has been largely stagnant for 2 years, and the incoming US admin has little appetite for continuing the conflict. This is an opportunity for a negotiated end to the war, not a time to be blowing things up even further. This isn't "emancipating" Ukrainians, it's just extending death and destruction in a moment where there's a real path towards winding it down.

      When one does a special military operation on another country's undisputed territory, one accepts that there might be a counter-operation.

      Sure, and if we're fortunate, the Russians have accepted that possibility and will get over it. On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country's undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
        ·
        1 month ago

        it's just extending death and destruction in a moment where there's a real path towards winding it down.

        I totally agree: it's disappointing and ill-advised, but not unprecedented.

        On the other hand, by sending American missiles to be fired on another country's undisputed territory, America accepts that there might be a counter-operation. Do you trust either Biden or Trump to be the adult in the room and accept that if Russia starts using it as justification for attacks on Americans?

        If Ansar Allah shot a Russian-made missile at the US (or even at Camp Lemonnier) that would be funny and righteous.