4 ms·
This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sur
by jeffdn 4y ago
This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sure, they can wantonly kill civilians, but that doesn't mean they are in charge. Until and unless autonomous drones with general artificial intelligence can be mass-produced and deployed on the scale of infantry brigades, massed infantry will be required. Even then, an EMP could disable those drones in one fell swoop.
They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange?
The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country.
Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?
- YarickR2 4y ago
- jeffdn 4y ago
- yks 4y agoPutin himself tells everyone that his goal is conquering territories, Eastern Europeans tell everyone that Russian goal is conquering territories, yet people on the internet are still parroting "NATO's fault". I wish everyone read the book Bloodlands first before supporting Russians in their cruel conquests.
- thriftwy 4y ago> The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments. Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government. That narrative will really have to go in favor of much more granular approach to post-WW2 history.
- ogogmad 4y ago> Several of these countries were created by the actions of Russian government. Which ones?
- thriftwy 4y agoI think that's Bulgaria, Romania and Moldavia, but maybe more. And, of course, Ukraine and Belarus. Maybe some of Balkan states as well if you count them as eastern european.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ogogmad 4y agoOK, and Russia caused the pogroms and a genocidal famine in Ukraine. It's not a good idea to learn your country's history in an overly rosy way. In fact, being kind to nationalists may have caused the present war. Russians should know that their country has had a sordid history.
- thriftwy 4y agoSoviet regime has caused famine in present day Ukraine, southern Russia, Volga region and Kazakhstan. Most of those who starved (arithmetically) were in what is present day Russian Federation. Are you sure you can tell propaganda from history? "Russia caused the pogroms" (sic) is another gem of same quality. I wonder if you could point to a country which does not have "sordid history". But if you ever want to have a dialogue with Russian as opposed to war, you can start by not pretending that you don't have your own "sordid history" and is allowed to judge others.