frisbird comments on ‘Russia Russia Russia’ Was No Hoax

‘Russia Russia Russia’ Was No Hoax (www.kyivpost.com)

submitted 6 days ago by supersquirrel@lemmy.ca to c/FuckTheUSA@lemmy.ca

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -52 points 6 days ago (22 children)

Except for:

being the first president to approve arms to Ukraine.
Pushing for, and getting, a tactical nuke program to counter Russia (which Biden subsequently made part of long term doctrine and expanded to include China).
Large economic restrictions against Russia via CAATSA.
Freezing assets of Russian billionaires and political figures, so extremely that even Europe said this was too far.
As a parting shot on his last day of his term put a sanction on Russian operations that stalled Nord Stream 2
Withdrawing from INF specifically to escalate against Russia.

In Trump term 2, he is now offering mild targeted, temporary, prerogative-based rollbacks of sanctions as part of diplomacy, but none of these changes would reduce sanctions to pre-Trump levels. Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama, W Bush, and Clinton. The only person who was harder on Russia than Trump was Biden, and Biden did it as a continuation of Trump's first term policies. Trump is now softening those.

This whole story that Trump is a Russian asset is a cover story to avoid telling the truth: the US is being forced to negotiate with Russia because it cannot achieve its goals on the battlefield. This truth is unacceptable to the establishment and it's a problem for the image of total dominance, so the story is instead that Trump is a Russian asset because that's the only other explanation for why the US is negotiating with Russia right now.

The reality is that Trump implemented and maintains some of the strongest sanctions against Russia that have ever existed, and doing so required him to push sanctions norms further than anyone else in the West.

Trump is a threat for completely different reasons. The whole Russian influence narrative is a distraction.

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

average ml smoothbrain

parent

[–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca [S] 22 points 6 days ago* (14 children)

What the hell are you smoking?

russia is being forced to negotiate [and being "forced" to commit acts of mass terrorism against Ukrainian civilians] with Ukraine and the US because it cannot achieve its goals on the battlefield.

Fixed that for you!

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -25 points 6 days ago (13 children)

I mean, that's a fine hypothesis, but it seems a lot more like Russia has been controlling the pacing of negotiations and picking who is in attendance and what the conditions for meeting are. That looks a lot more like Russia not being forced than being forced.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca [S] 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

I have been following the landwar in Ukraine very closely for years, russia has royally fucked the pooch, they have to negotiate lest their frontlines begin to truly collapse by next spring. They cannot apply artillery pressure to maintain their frontlines without unsustainably using their fighterbombers whereas Ukraine has multiple different survivable, affordable and effective land based artillery systems it is bringing to bear IN ADDITION to fighterbomber launched glidebombs.

Further Ukraine has demonstrated repeatedly that it has the ability to conduct armored combined arms assaults at the most intense parts of the frontline, on the otherhand russia has repeatedly and humiliating demonstrated it has no fucking clue how to.

The landwar is over for russia.

Not only that but russia's only theory of victory left is to commit acts of mass terrorism against Ukrainian civilians with saturation flying bomb/cruise missile attacks but the problem is as Ukraine's air defenses have become more and more effective the costs of russia's flying bombs have been forced to skyrocket to achieve the same impact (the media has been throwing russia a bone hard on this by only covering how the specifications of russian individual flying bombs keeps rising while pretending costs are magically not an issue for russia). Ukraine on the otherhand has dismantled russia's sophisticated air defenses letting them keep their flying bombs cheap on a per unit basis.

Jet powered flying bombs are also economically a dead end, they aren't useful for anything but murder, Ukraine has focused on much more economically viable kinds of drones and as a result Ukraine's economy is going to keep walking away from russia's as russia becomes a backwater middle of nowhere vaporwave series of brands for Chinese owned assets.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -11 points 5 days ago (11 children)

Yes. It's been that way since the beginning. Ukraine has always been stronger. Russia has always been incompetent. Russia has been weeks away from imminent collapse for three years now. Russia expanding its targeting further and further West through ballistic missiles is just a sure sign that any day now they're going to collapse. Ukraine's losses of power and infrastructure are just signs that Russia is desperate.

Wake me up when it happens

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca [S] 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Yes. It’s been that way since the beginning. Ukraine has always been stronger.

You have it backwards, the narrative has since the beginning been that a russian victory is inevitable.

Russia has always been incompetent.

They really have, while Ukraine should be lauded for innovating so much with drones, russia created this existential vulnerability to their tanks decades ago and never addressed it to the point that russian tanks popping their turrets became a damn meme, they just hadn't fought an opponent smart and adaptable enough to properly punish them for their bullshitting.

Further, russia has begun to blatantingly lie about where the frontlines are to coddle Putin's feelings, to the point of their own soldiers being sent to their deaths because they believed the frontline was somewhere else entirely until it hit them lethally in the face with no warninh. I don't think you can actually get any more incompetent than that, that is rock bottom for an "organized" military.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

the narrative has since the beginning been that a russian victory is inevitable.

Nice memory hole you got there.

Let's just pull the highlights:

Russia thought they could win in three days
Russia is using old Soviet tanks
Russian soldiers are being sent to the front lines without armor or weapons
Russia is forced to press people into service against their will because their losses are unsustainable
Russian losses are 5x or 10x Ukrainian losses
Russian military is rebelling
Russian people are anti-war and being oppressed and will rise up against Putin
Russian economy is totally collapsing
Russian currency is in free fall
Russia can barely hold any of the land it's gained
Russia can't even gain land
Ukraine has recovered in one month all Russian gains of the last 12 months

And on and on and on. Constantly. The Ghost of Kiev myth. The amazing Abrams. The incredible special forces. The volunteers from abroad.

If you genuinely think the narrative has been "Russian victory is inevitable" for three years, you are delusional

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago

Russia thought they could win in three days

They did seem pretty confident of a quick war—as many invaders have.

Russia is using old Soviet tanks

I guess many of them were destroyed.

Russia is forced to press people into service against their will because their losses are unsustainable

That's fair, though when Hitler invaded the USSR, the Soviets might have press-ganged a few conscripts.

Russian military is rebelling

"Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where the fuck is the ammunition?! Look at them, bitches"

Russian people are anti-war and being oppressed and will rise up against Putin

I didn't see that much about it in r/Ukraine.

Russia can barely hold any of the land it’s gained

They lost Kharkiv after losing that long line of tanks.

If you genuinely think the narrative has been “Russian victory is inevitable” for three years, you are delusional

Putin seems to think so.

parent

[–] supersquirrel@lemmy.ca [S] 1 point 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The hilarious thing is that unironically most of those are true.

The amazing Abrams.

The Abrams shits on russian tanks, correct!

https://defence24.com/armed-forces/land-forces/ukraines-armored-fleet-losses-and-current-inventory-analysis

Thus, 57 vehicles remain in the inventory of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, or 69.5% of the initial stock. This allows for the arming of one standard tank battalion of 31 vehicles. In addition, there are 26 tanks, enough to equip one understrength battalion. These tanks have demonstrated high resistance to hits, as well as the highest level of crew safety and survivability.

I must stress, these are very old versions of Abrams tanks, they are nothing like newer Abrams tanks even with Ukaraine's updates of them and yet... they still wipe the floor vs. any other main battle tank. You can also interestingly see how German tank design undermined itself by designing early leopards as somewhere between the abrams and russian tank design. Germany found out the hard way that russian style tank design is a dead end, russia has refused to learn this, the T-14 is just another M10 booker, light armor fascist fantasy that misunderstands the role of a main battle tank fundamentally.

If you genuinely think the narrative has been “Russian victory is inevitable” for three years, you are delusional

I am constantly reading english language news, there is no debate what narratives even allies of Ukraine accepted at the start of the war, Ukraine was treated as a noble but lost cause until Ukraine forced their allies into realizing Ukraine wasn't going to lose.

You are so bad at this narrative twisting, Ukraine never claimed it would be a "three day operation" to kick russia out, russia claimed they could take Ukraine in three days or so. Is this a thing leaders launching wars frequently do? Of course, but it is also true russia really never recovered any momentum after the initial three day operation failed and cost russia its decisive rotary wing capability....

Please try harder at your disinformation, it is boring how obvious it is that your feelings are hurt about this.

parent

[–] potatomuncher@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 child)

You can't genuinely believe Russia is in full control of the situation. They snatched some land. Kidnapped a bunch of children. Killed a bunch of civilians. But that's about it.

Nobody in that region came to the conclusion that they should kowtow to Putin now. That dude is also stuck in a situation where he fears losing his head if his people find him showing weakness.

Innocent people are paying the ultimate price for geopolitical posturing. Doesn't matter what you have to say about NATO, Nuland, or their broken promises. What does Russia wish to accomplish because clearly they're not winning and stealing their entire country. Do you want to see the suffering to end? If so, how?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -8 points 5 days ago

Why would I believe any side is in full control of a multi-sided military conflict? That's not what I said. I said Russia appears to be setting the pace in negotiations, and that this implies some aspect of availability of room to maneuver, whereas someone who was in danger of collapsing imminently wouldn't have the luxury of that kind of time.

I don't need to talk about any of the other topics you mentioned. The article is talking about Trump being a Russian asset despite Trump presiding over and directing some of the harshest anti-Russian sanctions and my assessment of why he's offering to let up some of that pressure, none of which would return Russia to pre-Trump sanctions, is because the US is being forced to by the conditions of the situation. We all know how the US behaves when it is not being forced - it strangles it's targets to death. It's doing it with Cuba as we speak. The fact that Trump applied maximal pressure and is now offering to ease some of the pressure is a clear negotiating tactic, and given the man's clear slide into dementia, he is most likely not the one driving the negotiation strategy and the strategy is being produced by multiple US factions arriving at their best compromise position given the facts on the ground.

Yes, I want the bloodshed to end. All wars end in negotiated peace. So negotiated peace is how it will end. The question is how soon, and the answer to that question is a question between the USA and Russia. Ukraine is a proxy of the USA, and just like all other US proxies in history, the USA decides whether the proxy keeps fighting or not.

I want the war to end immediately with no more loss of life. Most of the "Trump is a Russian stooge" camp want the war to end after Ukraine has fought more and lost more.

parent

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago (4 children)

Russia expanding its targeting further and further West through ballistic missiles is just a sure sign that any day now they’re going to collapse.

How much Ukrainian territory have they conquered? 5%? 2%?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml -3 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I think it's pretty clear that targeting further West with ballistics is entirely orthogonal to territory gains.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

orthogonal

This is a (mostly) new word for me.

Adjective

orthogonal (not comparable)

(geometry) .1. Of two objects, at right angles; perpendicular to each other.

A chord and the radius that bisects it are orthogonal.

(mathematics) .2. Of a pair of vectors: having a zero inner product; perpendicular.

.1. The normal vector and tangent vector at a given point are orthogonal.

.2. Of a square matrix: such that its transpose is equal to its inverse.

.3. Of a linear transformation: preserving its angles.

.4. Of grid graphs, board games and polyominoes: vertical or horizontal but not diagonal.

.5. Of a pair of elements in an ortholattice: each less than or equal to the orthocomplement of the other.

.3. (statistics) Statistically independent, with reference to variates.

.4. (software engineering) Of two or more aspects of a problem, able to be treated separately; of a design, exhibiting consistency and composability.

The content of the message should be orthogonal to the means of its delivery.

.5. Of two or more problems or subjects, independent of or irrelevant to each other.

I still don't get what you're saying.

Are you saying that if they made a straight line to Kyiv, Lviv, or Warsaw, that gains in area is "independent of or irrelevant"?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml -2 points 5 days ago (1 child)

I said Russia has been hitting targets further and further West via ballistic missile. You asked me how much territory they gained. I said that these two things (long range strikes and territorial capture) are unrelated.

Russia has clearly been focused on the border between Russia and Ukraine - multi-layered defense, political ambiguity through referenda, international humanitarian justification, etc. Russian territorial gains and losses are almost entirely confined to the Donbas region.

But also, Ukraine has industrial capabilities in the West that they are using to fight the war. Russia doesn't need to gain territory to hit those targets with ballistics. It's a different conversation.

Where they might be related is where those capabilities that Russia is targeting are capabilities that Ukraine is using on the front lines in the Donbas. But the effectiveness of launching a missile barrage at Kiev is not measured in territory gains or losses in the Donbas.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago

I said Russia has been hitting targets further and further West via ballistic missile. You asked me how much territory they gained. I said that these two things (long range strikes and territorial capture) are unrelated.

Okay;

but they been hitting Kyiv for years, it's just that their drones/missiles are now faster, and like the Shaheds, will take Ukrainians awhile before they again come up with better ways to counter them.

I know little of what's going on in Ukraine, be it rural or urban, but I figure that the population has been taking measures to better cope with Putin attacking civilian targets and civilians. I'm sure the per capita ownership of batteries (both lithium, lead-acid, and others), PVCs, wood stoves, maybe a few portable steam engines and small wind turbines—might as well make use of the winter gales—water storage, increased stores of necessities, potassium iodide (because Russia might use tactical nukes and we don't want a repeat of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were there were presumably fewer sandbags, no protection for thyroids, white shadows, etc), have increased.

Russia has clearly been focused on the border between Russia and Ukraine - multi-layered defense, political ambiguity through referenda, international humanitarian justification, etc. Russian territorial gains and losses are almost entirely confined to the Donbas region.

I agree that their occupation of Crimea and Donbas have been fortified, and probably like Ulster/Northern Ireland, will remain separated for years if not decades (no reason for diplomatic concessions, though).

But also, Ukraine has industrial capabilities in the West that they are using to fight the war. Russia doesn’t need to gain territory to hit those targets with ballistics. It’s a different conversation.

Russia tried to invade much, if not most (maybe all) of Ukraine in 2022. They failed, but in for a penny and all of that.

It seems that Putin has hunkered down for the long term. Maintain control of Crimea and Donbas, maybe expand a little, and try to fight a war of attrition with air strikes minus traditional air superiority. Where the US failed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Vietnam, with actual airplanes as well as with missiles, rockets, and shells, so will Russia fail even more with at least most of Ukraine.

Where they might be related is where those capabilities that Russia is targeting are capabilities that Ukraine is using on the front lines in the Donbas. But the effectiveness of launching a missile barrage at Kiev is not measured in territory gains or losses in the Donbas.

Again, it looks like a war of attrition: attempt to weaken the tax/industrial base of Ukraine to defend itself, be it in Donbas or Kyiv, mixed with psychology, i.e. try to weary Ukrainians—somewhat like Israel against Gaza, though Israel's attacks are far more intense and brutal, and their case, probably (but not certainly) will be more successful.

parent

[–] CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Russia really proved itself to be a paper tiger, and fed its economy and youth into a meat grinder

Now Ukraine is hitting deeper and harder than ever

parent

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago (4 children)

Obama might have sent arms to Ukraine had he remained President for more than 2 years.

Also many in the GOP caucuses in both houses supported Ukraine, such as Graham (and Darline appears to support) and McConnell, and thus countered Trump's bromance with Putin a bit.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

Obama might have sent arms to Ukraine had he remained President for more than 2 years.

Obama was president for 8 years, dawg

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago

Obama was president for 8 years, dawg

But the invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia happened halfway into Obama's 2nd term.

parent

[+] frisbird@lemmy.ml -7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child)

Obama might have sent arms to Ukraine had he remained President for more than 2 years

Obama literally took the position that sending weapons was too provacative and might cause a violent Russian reaction. Oh wow. Look what happened.

Also many in the GOP caucuses in both houses supported Ukraine, such as Graham (and Darline appears to support) and McConnell, and thus countered Trump's bromance with Putin a bit.

Again, Trump very clearly and concretely put the maximal pressure on countering Russia in at least 12 if not 20 years. The Trump bromance with Putin is propaganda from the US establishment designed to be an explanation as to why the US military can't achieve its goals.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 days ago

Obama literally took the position that sending weapons was too provacative and might cause a violent Russian reaction. Oh wow. Look what happened.

Russia took Crimea, and once they got away with it, started trouble in Donbas, meanwhile, IIRC, Obama was busy with the Middle East (the Neverending war continues). I suppose Russia is like a python that swallowed a sizable animal: it needed some time to digest it, so no overt land grabs from Ukraine for a while, not even recognition for the puppet republics of Donetsk or Luhansk.

Meanwhile Trump came along, inviting Russia to dig dirt on Clinton, praising Putin as better than Obama, and getting friendly with other dictators such as the Kim gang in North Korea.

Then Biden got elected and Trump lead a putsch. It failed, but it rattled a lot of people. Then there was the fall of Kabul—at least South Vietnam held on for about 2 years after the US pulled out. This was a bit after covid-19, and was soon after an entertainer got elected president of Ukraine.

I guess Putin thought the could take advantage of the situation and invade.

Like Hitler and Trump, some people just don't know when to stop.

Again, Trump very clearly and concretely put the maximal pressure on countering Russia in at least 12 if not 20 years.

(Not that it really needs saying, but Trump's been President for only 6 years.)

Russia was a bit different 20 years ago.

Twenty years ago, people hated the US—and that was somewhat warranted—because Dubya invaded and occupied, or attempted to occupy, Iraq—win one for daddy, I suppose. I took a dislike to Putin after Kursk, but to many, he was still the cool one. This was 2 years before Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

There was even talk of Russia joining NATO around that time or before.

So there really wasn't a need, real or perceived, to get tougher with Russia.

Kind of like Hitler, though in this, Putin played/plays the role of Hitler (though admittedly less brutal with other Eastern Slavs), Ukraine is Czechoslovakia, and Crimea and Donbas are Sudetenland. Many let it happen for peace (kind of like when Ukraine gave up its nukes for peace back when Clinton and Yeltsin were presidents). Then Putin invaded the rest of Ukraine, and as after Hitler invaded Poland, the West gulped and figured they better take things more seriously.

As for being tough on Russia, Trump was/is no tougher on Russia than Chamberlain was on Germany in WWI.

not Dmitry Peskov

parent