this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
429 points (98.2% liked)

World News

38659 readers
2249 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 26 points 6 days ago (2 children)

LoL, yeah.

And they beat the Nazis with a looooot of help from the US, pooring equipment into the Soviet Union, and then drafted the hell out of their country and sacrificed millions.

The Napoleonic war was when soldiers muzzle loaded their guns and prrimarily armies travelled by foot or rode horses. And kept warm in the winter by normally not going out to fight wars.

[–] coyootje@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They also very much had the advantage of knowing their terrain and both Hitler and Napoleon got cocky and kept going during winter time without being prepared for it. Hitler especially was actually making good progress until winter hit so you could almost even say that Russia took a calculated risk (even though I think it's more of a "got lucky" situation).

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 11 points 6 days ago

Not to mention the disingenuousness of leaving out how they lost to Hindenburg and Ludendorff in between those two

[–] seejur@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Reminder that when it was Napoleon "defending" (battles vs the coalitions), he absolutely handled Emperor Alexander (Russia) ass in the field. See Austerlitz

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah people seem to think nuclear powers cannot lose wars. Afghanistan, Vietnam and several other countries would like to chime in.

Look nuclear escalation is a theoretical option, bit in practice it's a lot harder than people think. And now with the recent sarmat test, war on Russian soil, the broad attacks on Russian infrastructure, gigantic losses and Russia relying on north Korea for production of artillery shells.. Russia looks weaker than ever.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Look nuclear escalation is a theoretical option, bit in practice it’s a lot harder than people think.

For two reasons in this case.

  1. Russia knows that the wind can blow radioactive ash across their border.

  2. Putin has grandchildren and dictators want legacies.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The other people in Putin's administration also have their own families and interests and wouldn't want that put at risk by nuclear annihilation. Even if Putin himself tried to give the go-ahead, I doubt those in charge of the nukes would want to effectively commit suicide over Putin's stupid invasion by firing them.