5 ms·

They voted for him because he speaks pretty well for a politician. Also some of his messages really land - consider that Ukraine is losing (very very slowly, an

They voted for him because he speaks pretty well for a politician. Also some of his messages really land - consider that Ukraine is losing (very very slowly, and can still win), so it makes sense to talk to both sides since it's unclear who will be calling shots in the region. Moldova is definitely next, right after Ukraine, and it cannot defend itself even from one mechanized brigade.

AustinDev 2y ago
>Ukraine is losing (very very slowly, and can still win), This is not remotely true, Ukraine can't retake what it's lost they have no men left. If it were true Zelensky wouldn't be contemplating ceding territory to Russia. It sucks but Ukraine lost in 2014 when the world let Crimea get annexed with no response. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-says-for-first-time-he-would-give-up-ukrainian-territory-to-russia-20241130-p5kurg.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-says-for-first-...
- the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
  Just depends on how you define “winning”. Right now both Russia and Ukraine are losing a lot compared to before 2022.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    By their own goals, Russia already lost this war 2 years ago. They may end it with a little extra territory and people, but that's not a victory, again, by their own claims.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Ukraine can't retake what it's lost they have no men left. You're extremifying. You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left". No matter what is actually happening on the ground -- you definitely won't be able to make heads or tails of it, if you keep confounding yourself with rhetoric like this.
  - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    > You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left". The realities of war are not LGBTQ-friendly. My male cousin has not been allowed to leave the country for almost 3 years. His wife is in Germany.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I'm sorry you got triggered, but that was absolutely in no way what I was getting at. That line had nothing whatsoever to do with this "people"/"men" nonsense. I was referring simply to the quantifier.
      - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        Thanks for the explanation. What’s the difference between those two?
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Subtracting the "people" vs "men" noise, I was trying to draw the distinction between the phrasings "they don't have enough people" and "they have no people left" (in both cases to meaning available to fight). The former suggests a situation which is quite dire, and that is certainly accurate in regard to Ukraine's current situation. The latter (if taken at face value) is essentially totalistic, and objectively misleading. That doesn't mean that that was their intent, of course. But to my ears it comes across as an overly emotionalized and in any case muddled characterization of the situation. Kind of like when, say, a startup is going through rough times and someone says "everyone's leaving" when really it was just their friend and a couple other people who have left. There's a word for this expressive style, btw: "histrionics".
        rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        Thank you for this in-depth clarification. Much appreciated. I'd argue the situation is quite dire and the, arguably fatalistic, phrasing is not incorrect here. Men are not allowed to exit the country, and I know personally quite a few cases where males, who were in no real fighting age or condition, were literally picked up on the street and sent to the front. With handcuffs and aggressive force. In my former hometown. So, staying in your analogy, "everyone's leaving" is rather correct, with the modifier "...who has enough money or sheer luck". "But they're still there" feels like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
- r00fus 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    Yes I'm sure there were no strings attached at all to Russian "support" to the Ukrainian economy.
cbg0 2y ago
His messaging regarding Ukraine was not something that positively affected his campaign, on the contrary it ignited political opponents over his anti-NATO views. His campaign landed better because of his palatable way of speaking and saying a lot without saying anything, as most people that voted for him were not really aware of his positions on any serious subject.
- RealityVoid 2y ago
  Yes, I said multiple times he was Schrodinger's candidate, he could hold multiple mutually contradictory positions at the same time. Pretty ridiculous.
quickthrowman 2y ago
Romania is a member of NATO, they don’t need to give two shits about Russia being a regional power because they will not be invaded by Russia as long as the US is part of NATO.

AustinDev 2y ago

>Ukraine is losing (very very slowly, and can still win), This is not remotely true, Ukraine can't retake what it's lost they have no men left. If it were true Zelensky wouldn't be contemplating ceding territory to Russia. It sucks but Ukraine lost in 2014 when the world let Crimea get annexed with no response. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-says-for-first-time-he-would-give-up-ukrainian-territory-to-russia-20241130-p5kurg.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zelensky-says-for-first-...

the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
Just depends on how you define “winning”. Right now both Russia and Ukraine are losing a lot compared to before 2022.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  By their own goals, Russia already lost this war 2 years ago. They may end it with a little extra territory and people, but that's not a victory, again, by their own claims.
aguaviva 2y ago
Ukraine can't retake what it's lost they have no men left. You're extremifying. You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left". No matter what is actually happening on the ground -- you definitely won't be able to make heads or tails of it, if you keep confounding yourself with rhetoric like this.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  > You could have said "they don't have enough people". But instead you had to dial it up to "they have no men left". The realities of war are not LGBTQ-friendly. My male cousin has not been allowed to leave the country for almost 3 years. His wife is in Germany.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I'm sorry you got triggered, but that was absolutely in no way what I was getting at. That line had nothing whatsoever to do with this "people"/"men" nonsense. I was referring simply to the quantifier.
    - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
      Thanks for the explanation. What’s the difference between those two?
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Subtracting the "people" vs "men" noise, I was trying to draw the distinction between the phrasings "they don't have enough people" and "they have no people left" (in both cases to meaning available to fight). The former suggests a situation which is quite dire, and that is certainly accurate in regard to Ukraine's current situation. The latter (if taken at face value) is essentially totalistic, and objectively misleading. That doesn't mean that that was their intent, of course. But to my ears it comes across as an overly emotionalized and in any case muddled characterization of the situation. Kind of like when, say, a startup is going through rough times and someone says "everyone's leaving" when really it was just their friend and a couple other people who have left. There's a word for this expressive style, btw: "histrionics".
        rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        Thank you for this in-depth clarification. Much appreciated. I'd argue the situation is quite dire and the, arguably fatalistic, phrasing is not incorrect here. Men are not allowed to exit the country, and I know personally quite a few cases where males, who were in no real fighting age or condition, were literally picked up on the street and sent to the front. With handcuffs and aggressive force. In my former hometown. So, staying in your analogy, "everyone's leaving" is rather correct, with the modifier "...who has enough money or sheer luck". "But they're still there" feels like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
r00fus 2y ago
[flagged]
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Yes I'm sure there were no strings attached at all to Russian "support" to the Ukrainian economy.

cbg0 2y ago

His messaging regarding Ukraine was not something that positively affected his campaign, on the contrary it ignited political opponents over his anti-NATO views. His campaign landed better because of his palatable way of speaking and saying a lot without saying anything, as most people that voted for him were not really aware of his positions on any serious subject.

RealityVoid 2y ago
Yes, I said multiple times he was Schrodinger's candidate, he could hold multiple mutually contradictory positions at the same time. Pretty ridiculous.

quickthrowman 2y ago

Romania is a member of NATO, they don’t need to give two shits about Russia being a regional power because they will not be invaded by Russia as long as the US is part of NATO.