Belarus and the DPRK are supporting the Russian Federation but the U.S. isn’t supporting Ukraine?
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
56 points (96.7% liked)
Funny
102 readers
32 users here now
Funniest content on all Lemmygrad
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How is Belarus even supporting Russia beyond agreeing that Nazis are bad?
Well they did let them move troops through their territory to strike the city of Kiev directly in the early days of the war.
I had forgotten about that, but okay, fair enough.
There is quite literally no proof that North Korean soldiers are in Ukraine but that's the new narrative because NATO really wants to manufacture consent for war with China.
The fact that no one seems to have even asked for evidence speaks for itself. But they know it doesn't matter since everyone backing the Ukranazis is already a genocidal racist.
Their half-ass compromise:
lol I love how they try to keep it low key
Libs are so unserious lol
Sooooo... Does this count as official recognition of the DPR and LPR? But not Crimea? CIApedia is a clown show.
Isn't Crimea part of Russia
It seceeded from Ukraine first and was a de facto independent country for a short while.
Yep, but the westoids still refuse to recognize it as such. According to CIApedia it's "occupied" by Russia.
lol didn't even think of that
These people should pursue their dreams of becoming comedians instead of wasting away editing Wikipedia articles. I believe in them.
Fuck it, I'll bite. What is wrong with this image?
Ukraine should have under supported by "US, France, UK, NATO, EU" at minimum on their side. The number of citations one could give for that support would not be mere allegations by one leader that are denied by both Russia and the other country but hundreds of instances of open admission to the media that this is what they are doing.
It is in English so the Pax Americana likely infiltrated and altered the Wikipedia information for disinformation campaign. The omission of support by NATO members likely has intention to hide the puppt government status of status of Zelensky and his predecessor. The omission of allies to the current Kyiv government could also hide the fact that the Kyiv government under Zelensky and his predecessor depends on foreign countries for their rule against their lack of domestic support. The framing that the war is between Russia and Ukrain hides the fact that the conflict is a civil war between the rebeling Ukrainian states in the Donetsk region that decided to split from Ukraine by their own violation and the Euromaiden coup government in Kyiv that attemps to massacre all Ukrainains who are ethnically Russians in the rebeling states.
NATO involvement, in supplying Ukraine with weapons and intel, I suppose?
It's probably fair to say that Zelenski isn't actually calling the shots for Ukraine, for example? In which case, what is the actual actual sovereign entity involved in the conflict, on Ukraine's side?
Thanks for biting. :)
That's a good point. Ig that's why wikipedia had updated it.
Is that because there's insufficient or poor evidence for Russia's supporters?
If so or if not, what is the effect of giving the impression that clicking the link under Russia will reveal a large and well substantiated list?
If the Russian list wasn't impliedly large, why include a link rather than a couple of names?
Does the presentation equate the kind and scope of support for Russia and Ukraine?
If so, what is the effect, intended or accidental, of equating support for Ukraine and Russia?
What is the effect, intended or accidental, of limiting 'support' to military suppliers or aid?
What is the difference between 'suppliers' and 'aid'?
Why is there no 'aid' list for Russia?
Why is there no 'supplier' list for Ukraine?
What is the effect of using different categories connected to each state?
The OP screenshot and the updated version you posted raise these questions.
Most repectfully, you can read the change log and the discussions on the page. Hell, you can even ask the same questions there.
I don't really care what the change log says. The log isn't what users read. Users read the text in the screenshot(s).
You asked what was wrong with the image. What's wrong is that it is full meaning can only be divined by a critical reading, which requires answering my above questions and four new questions: (1) why should readers have to view the change log to understand the text (2) should readers expect more rigorous material by asking questions in the change log than is presented in the page itself (3) if yes to the second question, why and (4) why is or would there be more rigour 'behind the scenes' than 'on stage'?
Redtea is giving you the kind of deep questioning we do here to understand your first question. It's not a question for you to answer. It's the reasoning behind us questioning Wikipedia editors. And a really great job at that. He was really thoughtful, I don't think I'd be able to go to the same level of detail.
The log will likely show that whoever came up with these questions was overruled, and for drawing lines and editorial choices, they went with a prominent Russia flag on one side, against a "neutral" link that may or may not contain NATO countries in it. See, these choices are not neutral. These choices follow the same choices regarding international politics as the big media conglomerates sponsored by the US financial system. How likely is that a coincidence?
I can agree with you that the updated list is better. But the summary still leans one way. At least it gives people some chance to go deeper, now. Still, most people won't, so it's fair to expect most people will just think Russia vs Ukraine. With some suppliers around them. 'Probably "terrorists" and "dictators" (also terminology used by the same finance-system financed media) behind Russia, since we're good guys and they're bad guys, duh.'