• SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    89·
    2 months ago

    Even the US’ intelligence apparatus is a bunch of Putin shills now

    But seriously, no shit lmao. Did libs really think Putin was gonna try and pull an Ögedei Khan and try to take Europe?

  • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    86·
    2 months ago

    Still not as embarrassing as angular-merkel admitting the Minsk agreements were all just to buy time for Ukraine.

    The original narratives about Ukraine no longer matter, the only thing left in the collective consciousness is Ukraine is a democracy therefore the war is about “western values”. The good thing is since then even a good part liberals don’t care about that anymore, its impossible to manufacture a narrative that Ukraine is winning right now, at best they “resisting” evil Putler and Zelensky does nothing but beg for more aid.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOPEnglish
      68·
      2 months ago

      The Western media’s admission of the deceitful nature of their narrative exposed liberals, who mindlessly parrot the same talking points despite the revelations, as nothing more than gullible buffoons.

      • NapoleonBlownApart [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        66·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think liberals could have had a worse week. The cracks in their dome are apparent and aren’t going away. Some people are checking out, some people are saying “enough” to the constant stream of bullshit right to their faces. /R/politics is a hoot right now.

        But do they change anything about their approach? Of course not.

          • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
            49·
            2 months ago

            i might have thought so a few years back but now i feel like there is no end to their ability to mental contortion and gymnastics

            • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.netMEnglish
              41·
              2 months ago

              I mean, for them to stop believing in their ideology, they’d have to find something else to believe in. What would that even be? Most of them are probably innoculated against ideas left of Mussolini due to the constant government programming happening on reddit, so they’d either become anarchobidenists and believe 95% of the same things by saying to themselves “anarchism is when you hate authoritarian governments (read: governments who are resistant to being totally rolled over by American monopolies) and love western democracies. who the fuck is kropotkin? gelderloos? I’m listening to a 3 hour video essay by a breadtuber”

              or, I guess, they’d turn even further conservative and/or libertarian and start frothing at the mouth about the federal reserve and age of consent laws

              • sexywheat [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
                23·
                2 months ago

                In my observations on Libs, I think the biggest challenge for them is that they fundamentally trust the institutions that govern our society. In order to believe in something else, they would have to break that trust on a fundamental level. But that trust underpins their entire worldview, so in doing so they would not only have to fundamentally alter their core values, but also in doing to have to admit that they have been wrong about everything their entire lives. That’s a pretty tall order.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOPEnglish
              34·
              2 months ago

              I’d argue that mainstream libs represent the segment of the population that still hasn’t been significantly affected materially. They still have their jobs, they can pay their bills, and there really hasn’t been any dramatic change in their lifestyle. They also tend to stay in their bubble avoiding interaction with people who are struggling. This segment of the population is rapidly shrinking though, and we can see them starting to freaking out that their voices are increasingly challenged nowadays. It’s a huge shock for them that their narrative can’t spread unchallenged.

        • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          20·
          2 months ago

          They’re gonna continue to childishly point fingers at everyone else. “All the mistakes I have made and continue to make are because of the chyna-ruzzia-woke-tankie-bots”

  • itappearsthat@hexbear.netEnglish
    771·
    2 months ago

    No, it was always this way. We always knew this. The way the government is admitting things are is the same as what they’ve been saying all along. Your left-wing views always make you say paranoid stuff like this. This is not an unexpected departure from the official line. The only people who were trying to scare us about how Europe could be invaded next were misinformed marginal figures, not the actual authority figures who always had a reassuring firm grip and level gaze toward reality. If it were really a big change then someone would make a big deal about it, and I don’t see anybody making a fuss.

  • Rx_Hawk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    681·
    2 months ago

    If you use an ounce of critical thinking it was always clear NATO wants a war with Russia, not the other way around.

  • BelieveRevolt [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    61·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, no shit. These pathetic eu-cool vassals don’t care though, they’ll keep throwing money down the pit of “increased defense spending because NATO wants it”.

  • TBooneChickens [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    132·
    2 months ago

    I’m not trying to get flamed as a lib here, but there’s a gulf of difference between “not wanting to expand the war” and “having no further ambition once the war is over”

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOPEnglish
      232·
      2 months ago

      There is no indication that Russia has any military ambitions past Ukraine, and it’s pretty clear that Russia tried very hard to prevent the situation in Ukraine from devolving into a war.

      • TBooneChickens [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        91·
        2 months ago

        I’m not arguing either of these points, I’m just pointing out that all NYT is saying here is that US officials have always believed that Russia wants this war to stay contained to Ukraine. Not that they think Russia didn’t want this war or that Russia doesn’t have other interests it will pursue external to this war.

        All I’m saying is NYT didn’t really reveal anything here.

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zipEnglish
        46·
        2 months ago

        I mean… That’s true in that Russia tried to win before Ukraine could mount a significant resistance. Attacking in the first place was pretty clearly an act of war, though, so it feels a bit disingenuous to claim Russia wanted to avoid a war when they… Started… A war…

        All it really says is that Russia thought they were strong enough to steamroll Ukraine. Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place or retreating when faced with actual resistance.

        • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          211·
          2 months ago

          Actually wanting to avoid a war would look a lot more like never attacking in the first place

          Okay, so, consider this: the most prolific aggressor in the world, one which has been carrying out invasions around the world, inducing crises, enacting coups, killing millions, and which has broken its promise to not expand to your border, carried out a coup in a neighbouring country and is trying to set up a military force there against you in a blatant act of aggression. What do you do?

          • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zipEnglish
            38·
            2 months ago

            Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy. It’s not what I’d do, but Putin seemed to think it was the move to make.

            • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              151·
              2 months ago

              Apparently, you invade with ineptitude that would be hilarious if not for the bloodshed, embarrass yourself on the world stage, commit a whole bunch of war crimes, and drive several of your neighbors into the arms of this enemy

              I’m sorry, I thought that you weren’t this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn’t expand to any US border, and is not the word’s most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.

              In any case, I’m going to note that you did refuse to give an answer to the question, are fine with committing war crimes (in particular, with Ukraine using cluster bombs on its own populated areas), and you seem to think that Sweden and Finland weren’t already de facto NATO states, despite their prior participation in NATO atrocities.

              It’s not what I’d do

              Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.

              • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zipEnglish
                24·
                2 months ago

                I’m sorry, I thought that you weren’t this delusional about Afghanistan somehow fitting the description I provided. No, kid, Afghanistan didn’t expand to any US border, and is not the word’s most prolific aggressor that killed millions of people during its second invasion of Iraq alone.

                I’m sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine, so I interpreted your comment through that lens. I’ve heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I’ve never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim, so I assumed that was what you meant. You know, because it’s relevant to the discussion at hand, unlike Afghanistan.

                Well, we are still waiting for you to tell us what you would do. After all, you seem to think that you are qualified to tell the rest of the world how it should resist you and how it should react to your aggression.

                Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn’t resist. I never did, nor was that the topic at hand. Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding.

                The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine. Ukraine being the country they invaded. Voluntarily. Arguably for imperialist reasons. Unless, of course, you think it’s pure coincidence that Russia would stand to gain ports, natural gas (or is it oil? I think natural gas), and a ton of food production.

                • Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  111·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m sorry, I thought you understood we were talking about Ukraine

                  We were, but you decided to talk about your embarrassment and atrocities in Afghanistan, for some reason.

                  I’ve heard claims that the 2014 was western-backed, though I’ve never seen anyone attempt to substantiate that claim

                  The Nuland-Pyatt correspondence where they discussed whom to put on the throne in Ukraine instead of the then-current leader were leaked in early February of 2014, before the coup. She also bragged about how much the US spent on influencing the Ukrainian government. And, of course, the leaders of the coup were politicians - it was not a grassroots movement.

                  Go ahead and quote the part where I said anything about how they should or shouldn’t resist

                  You keep talking about how Russia is bad for resisting you, for example.

                  I never did, nor was that the topic at hand

                  It’s literally the topic at hand. You started it by talking about how Russia shouldn’t have resisted your aggression the way Russia did.

                  Attempting to force me to answer it is nothing but an attempt at grandstanding

                  Cool. So, what you said is that Russia responded correctly to your aggression. Good to know that you will now delete your cold comments now that you realise that you were in the wrong.

                  The discussion at hand, since you seem to be struggling to grasp that, was whether or not Russia was trying to prevent war in Ukraine

                  War with NATO more generally.

                  And yeah, Russia did try to resolve it otherwise. Russia did not just do an overt full-scale invasion in 2014.

                  Ukraine being the country they invaded

                  After NATO did a coup in Ukraine and set up a puppet government there that was attempting to bring NATO’s weapons to the Russian border.

                  Voluntarily

                  Cool. So what would you do? Let the most prolific aggressor in the world harass and attack you? Lol.

                  Notably, you are fine with voluntarily invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, committing genocides, including the one in the occupied Palestine, known torture sites, coups, etc.