REEEEvolution

joined 3 years ago
[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Considering how Russia is:

  1. clearly winning
  2. Having about 1/10 of the losses of Ukraine

I assume that you do not know what you're talking about.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist "de facto" members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don't do anything) and both (the rest).

The organisation can make PR about how it has "partners" and the like, but that does not change a thing.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

2014, escalation into war started 2022. By that point, one million people had fled to Russia.

If you then remember the rethoric of the Ukr government and soldiers in Donbas how they want to get rid of the russians... ethnic cleansing is the term that fits.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

Russia was building trust for years beforehand. Putin spoke twice in the Bundestag for example, the goal was a free trade zone from Lisabon to Wladiwostok. Russia also asked to join NATO. It got declined both times. Even when the coup happened in Ukraine, Russia attempted multiple diplomatic initiatives to deescalate the situation.

Do you know who always escalated? Who was always pushing for conflict? Hint: It wasn't Russia.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Sweden and Finnland, both already being de facto NATO members beforehand... You're not too informed baout this international politic thingy, aren't you?

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.

Maybe read the rest. Macht deine Position weniger peinlich.

I'm german, let me translate: "The goal was to achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine via a ceasefire. She (Ukraine is meant here) also used this time to get stronger (considering the context here being military conflict, it means stronger in the military sense.), as can be seen today."

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Russia literally never entered any war without serious provocation beforehand.

It took Georgia killing peacekeeping forces for Russia to march in. It took 8 years of ethnic cleansing in Dinbas before Russia intervened in Ukraine.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Imagine believing this. If you have no idea what you're talking about, don't.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Maybe actually read textbooks then. Hint: They're the ones without pictures.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 2 months ago

Just randomly. Ignore anything from 2014 to 2022. Putin woke up one day and decided invading Ukraine would be rad. Events always happen disconnected from each other, don't you know? While you're at it, also ignore anything from 1990 to 2014. Nothing to see here, move on.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

When its past bad thing you were totally against it, when its current bad thing your support it. Liberals like you truely oppose every war of their empire but the current one.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

One much larger and using draft to fill the ranks of attackers.

So not Russia then. Because it only mobilized some of its reservists and did not send in conscripts.

view more: next ›