this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
178 points (88.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43974 readers
805 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The goal posts for both sides are very, very different.
The invading Russian forces have basically failed their first goal; to fully take over Ukraine. They can now claim a minor victory by stealing more territory from Ukraine than just Crimea.
Ukraine's goal was to stop Russia from wiping them off of the map. Things appear to have changed. Their new goal is to retake all land that Russia has stolen (including Crimea).
The war has largely been at a standstill for a while, and the only times that Ukraine has been able to make progress is when the word has given its attention and resources. Since "Israel vs Hamas" is the guerre-du-jour, Ukraine seems to be getting less of both.
So I may sound like a doomer, but it's not looking good for the good guys. They have a much harder victory condition, and the resources that they have relied so far may be drying up.
Has Russia ever stated that this was their goal?
Yes.
Sauce?
That time they tried to fully take over Ukraine. That's a pretty good indicator.
Since they're very obviously not trying to take over all of Ukraine, I'll take that as an admission that you're full of shit.
So you don't consider charging at a countries capital and dropping airborne troops into a capital trying to take over a country? That's a really weird take.
Reality isn't a paradox game, so no, I don't.
Can you provide proof for this?
Oh my god, we get it, you’re exhausting.
No, I’m not providing proof of this exhaustion. Do your own research.
I did try. I just didn't find anything that remotely comes close to supporting what you claimed.
Keep looking. You’ll get it eventually.
Considering Russia denied their intent to invade as they were conducting it, I don't know that their statements should be considered truth regarding their plans and goals. But here's Westpoint's take on the matter:
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/what-is-russias-theory-of-victory-in-ukraine.
You are unironically sharing a quote riddled with "may"s and "seem"s from United States Military Academy
And you are making a statement that seems to suggest absolute knowledge of a country's intentions are possible with a leader with a lack of credibility and long history of lying on the world stage.
Gee, this is fun. Or were you making some point? Were you expecting some report about their magic mind-reading device?
But this is what you have been doing all along. Nothing in reality suggests that total annexation of Ukraine was the goal. Not the words of anyone nor the manner in which Russia has executed the invasion yet here you are somehow reading minds to conjure grand motives and subjecting me to smug Reddittor-speak for the crime of asking you to back your frivolous claims. "Gee, this is fun." Jesus Christ.
Wait, I'm confused, were you looking for "is" or "suggests?" Because I sent you an article all about "suggests." And, follow-up question, did you think 'You are unironically sharing a quote riddled with "may"s and "seem"s from United States Military Academy' is not smug and was a genuinely civil question?
Since it seems you might not be great at this whole "communicating" thing, I'll be explicit: Yes, those questions were rhetorical. No, you've given me nothing to suggest I should care what your response is.
Gee, this is fun. Reality is not wishy washy statements from literal America military institutions. It just exposes you as someone who gobbles American state department nonsense wholesale uncritically. If you watched your Rick and Morty properly you would have known that it is not a smart thing to do. Reality in this case refers to what's happening on the ground in the war. Like Russia holding it's annexed territories rather trying to expand indiscriminately.
You are an idiot.
This was never Russia's goal, you can't quote a single Russian official stating that this was the objective of the SMO.
No, Ukraine's goal was to "liberate" Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea and return to their 1991 borders.
https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/ukraine-will-liberate-crimea-by-military-means-danilov/
https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-fight-until-last-liberated-005810749.html
https://tvpworld.com/74421963/ukraine-is-fighting-to-restore-its-1991-borders-fm
They've failed and will never reach this goal.
It is, you're just not on the side of the good guys : )
Of course the Lemmygrad user wants to tongue punch Putin's chocolate starfish.
I love how libs just regurgitate the same lines in lieu of an argument like trained seals. 😂
Pretty funny how you can provide an explanation backed by references and then get mass downvotes because libs still have problems engaging with reality after a year and a half of being wrong about absolutely everything.
I wish I didn’t have to individually block lemmygrad accounts- it’s my only issue with kbin.social. Still love you, Ernest.
You are really living up to your username.
I love how libs can't even block others without doing virtue signalling 😂
Could you whine less? I like the positive energy of this place and you are ruining my vibes.
I’m positive that this comment will help me find more users who stray from your echo chamber. Keep ‘em coming.
The people straying from the "echo chamber" aren't the ones blocking others for dissent. Sounds like you're projecting.
I’m open to new political opinions, just not regressing through yours.
I completely understand blocking or ignoring those who engage you in bad faith, but when someone disagrees with you and also engages in a discussion in good faith, you are merely silencing voices of dissent by blocking them.
How is that approach not creating an echo chamber? It seems hypocritical to label spaces that welcome good faith discourse "echo chambers" while creating your own.
Are you upset?
You don’t understand blocks do you? Here’s another shot.