You can even make sure you are consistent with both things in action 100% of the time - it's a neat little trick called "opposing the position of your own government".

[–] orizuru@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you aware that it’s possible to want neither NATO tanks nor Russian tanks in Ukraine?

I am.

But do you believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia without NATO's weapon supply?

[–] Sphere@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

He most likely doesn't believe Ukraine is able to maintain their territory protected from Russia with NATO's weapon supply, and for good reason, given how clearly this is demonstrated by the utter failure of the vaunted counter-offensive. The only thing your position is really advocating is the useless deaths of vast numbers of Ukrainians (and Russians, for that matter).

[–] teichflamme@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The mere fact that they are in the act of a counter offensive after Russia tried to blitz then shows that it's not even close to what you're describing.

Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Russia tried to blitz

The mere fact that you believe this shows how steeped in western propaganda you are

At no point was Russia's strategy a blitz, this is a lie meant to equate Russia with nazi Germany and Pitin With Hitler even though it's still ukkkraine celebrating Bandara as a national hero

No Russia's gameplan from the start has been what it has been for almost 100 years, Soviet tactics not that that coked up nazi blitzkreig bullshit

The attack on Kiev was likely a feint

Ukraine is holding their current territory pretty easily and gaining the upper hand very clearly.

The cope levels are off the charts