That will show 'em!
That will show 'em!
I'm starting to see why America hasn't won a war in like 100 years.
It's pretty embarrassing when you starve your people just to have the world's most expensive army... only to constantly lose. Lmao.
You're viewing a single thread.
What does America have to do with this caption?
American sponsored war
There’s over 45 countries that have provided mutations/aid for the defense of Ukraine. Singling out one particular country seems disingenuous when you think about it. It’s okay to not like America but your OP is strange to me since the caption is specifically about a Ukrainian policy or whatever it is.
It would be like me posting about cereal or something and then saying “China bad”. See what I’m saying?
Maybe you don't know what what US hegemony is? The West answers to the US. My own country has a US military base smack dab in the middle of it. It's not strange to state a fact.
It would be like me posting about cereal or something and then saying “China bad”. See what I’m saying?
The war in Ukraine and US warmongering are very much linked. Unlike your example. Either you don't understand global politics or you're being disingenuous yourself.
I understand your point about US hegemony and its global influence. The connection you've made between the war in Ukraine and US involvement in global politics is valid and highlights a significant aspect of international relations. I appreciate you expanding on your previous comment.
With that said, I still don’t see how the USA is relevant to the caption of your post, respectfully. If it’s just circlejerking that’s fine - I get it.
"I see you, I hear you, you're valid, now I'm going to passive aggressively suggest your substantive answer is just circlejerking"
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion 420blazeit69
See what I’m saying?
Yes, I see you're saying that you have no fucking idea how the world works.
While I respect your opinion, even if it’s dismissive, lacks substance, and doesn’t address a single one of my points.
If you want to elaborate I’m all ears.
See what I’m saying?
no
I can appreciate your blind dedication
who is running NATO?
NATO isn’t the the only organization sending munitions or aid to Ukraine. It’s also off topic and has nothing to do with the points I expressed.
What does NATO have to do with a rule/law that Ukraine comes up with regarding Russia?
What does NATO have to do with a rule/law that Ukraine comes up
If you don't understand that vassal countries do whatever their masters tell them to do then I strongly recommend reading the european report on the vassalisation of europe. https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-art-of-vassalisation-how-russias-war-on-ukraine-has-transformed-transatlantic-relations/
This isn't specifically about Ukraine, it's about how the war in Ukraine has vassalised the EU countries, and how things like Brexit led to pressures that forced the EU into obeying America, but it's a useful primer for you to learn about how other countries become subservient to american interests. Particularly because it's a report funded and produced by the EU and other nations.
I appreciate the colorful language you’ve chosen, makes it easier to see where this is going.
Characterizing countries as "vassals" oversimplifies international relations. Nations make decisions based on their own interests, and labeling them as subservient to others neglects the complexities of diplomacy and sovereignty.
The EU comprises of multiple sovereign member states, each with its own interests. EU decision making involves negotiation and consensus among these sovereign member states. While external factors may influence EU policies, attributing all of its actions to American pressure disregards the diversity of opinions and interests within the EU.
Additionally, the relationship between the EU and the United States is multifaceted. While there may be areas of cooperation, it’s an oversimplification to view the EU as a subservient entity to the United States. The EU has its own policies, trade agreements, and international partnerships that reflect its interests and values.
The term “vassal” implies a level of servitude that doesn’t accurately capture the give-and-take of international relations. Countries engage in a wide range of diplomatic relationships and alliances, and their decisions are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including their sovereignty, national security, economic interests, and diplomatic considerations. To say the USA is able to inject its own national interests into each of these countries is a bit far-fetched when you take a step back, but I can see where your argument is coming from. We all can be victims of propaganda because all of our countries do it. Makes the waters a bit muddy, right?
Dude just shut the fuck up
over 45 countries that have provided mutations/aid for the defense of Ukraine
I thought only US and UK send depleted uranium ammo to mutate Ukrainians.
Whether or not this is true is irrelevant since Russia uses it too. It also doesn’t address my point that the USA has nothing to do with this caption on the OP.
Since it needs to be spelled out for you (come on, really?), here it is:
To me, OP is firstly highlighting how utterly useless and, quite frankly, depressingly comical it is that ukraine is pushing to do away with capitalizing certain words during war-time. Secondly, OP is highlighting how fucked Ukraine is to many of their own people, like the ethnic Russians who speak Russian.
This, tied in with the background context that Ukraine's counteroffensive has utterly failed, and that this war is unwinnable for them at this point, highlights how much they look like clowns by doing this sort of thing.
OP is then saying its now easy to see how America could lose so many wars when it fights with clowns.
But that connection rests upon the following premise: ukraine is being used as a proxy--by the US--to fight the Russians. (Hence, their response to you was 'America sponsors the war').
Your confusion (which is just willful ignorance) stems from you not realizing how much influence the US has over Ukraine and over this war.
But that is widely accepted fact here. Really, to anyone who has been paying attention and isnt blinded by american and western propaganda.
The situation is somewhat analogous to you stumbling upon a proof, and then disagreeing with the conclusion because you disagree with one of the arguments starting premises.
To further the analogy: what you need to do is to take a basic logic course. The premises we're using here shouldnt be controversial ( but of course, they are within the imperial core)
While you may view Ukraine's language policies during wartime as unusual, it's important we consider that language and identity are complex issues. Ukraine's efforts to promote the use of its national language may not solely be a matter of geopolitical posturing or clownery, as you suggested. Instead, it could be an attempt to strengthen its national identity and culture, especially during war times.
Furthermore, characterizing Ukraine's conflict with Russia as a simple proxy war orchestrated by the United States oversimplifies the complex geopolitical dynamics in the region. The situation involves historical, cultural, and regional factors that go beyond a binary understanding of U.S. influence. Assigning blame solely to one party overlooks the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the agency of those directly involved.
While our interpretations may differ, it's essential to consider the broader complexities of the situation rather than reducing it to a single perspective.
I appreciate you taking the time to provide an in depth response, even if our views not the same. This is what I like about hexbear!
its not During Wartime , it was 1 day after the Coup that they forbade the Russian Region from using Russian in Administration. You knowledge of ukraine is a moldy bunch of fake facts from which you then try to reason , but its fucking useless to "reason" from a bunch of utterly deranged fake facts. Like Starting you anaysis with confusing "Cause" and "Reaction" .. makes you analysis absolutly useless...
then i see a clear Emotional Need to somehow shield the worlds Most Deranged and amoral nation (i consider you a member of it and file it under "hurt Narcisissm" ) , by grasphing for semantics that somehow make the Nation
-
that has Lied for 8years perfidious with Purpose so that the war would Start ( yes to you ! , you can Check , all your "facts" are rotten to the core ) ,
-
Financing the Nation with Purpose that the War will last
-
Turned cause and effect on its head so that @ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee proudly & Smuggly walks with the Nazi Perpetrators .
... innocent.
The US Tactic is to "Escalate a Security Dilemma" until it forces the other side into "Zugzwang" , then it uses its Softpowrr (and it is Powerfull , your current Believes lay testament to that fact) , to spin it into the "Aggressor" ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
You sound very upset, and I apologize for that. I’m unfortunately having great difficulty understanding what you are trying to say. I’m sure it’s just a language barrier but it comes across in English as incoherent rambling.
If you want to shout at the mountains, go for it. If you want a discussion, let’s start off with being more respectful. That way we can be more constructive in our discussion going forward.
-
There’s over 45 countries that have provided mutations/aid for the defense of Ukraine.
When you say the nato empire + 14 countries it really puts it in perspective how few that is.
Even split out, there's 195 countries in the world so you're effectively saying less than a quarter of them have supported it.
45 countries that have sent munitions. Support, as you pointed out in your comment is a different number.
141 countries have expressed support for Ukraine - which is more about 3/4ths of the counties in the world.
The 4 countries that support Russia are Syria, North Korea, Belarus, and Nicaragua. 35 countries (including China) abstained from voicing support.
I understand that this invalidates your argument but I’m glad we had this conversation.
