Literally the top search result when googling for "NATO cultural enrichment protocol" is this very tweet. Seems like made up propaganda. We already know that there were quite a bit of Africans in Ukraine pre-war, mostly college students who couldn't get into Western Europe and settled for cheaper Ukrainian universities.




It is not a given that public support for a war effort increases as it drags on. That's surely not how the Iraq War played out, or Vietnam. Or WW1 for that matter. Or the Soviet mission in Afghanistan.

Generally speaking, this sound a lot like telling a rape victim to "let it happen, if you fight back, you'll just end with a battered face on top of the rape".

Do you have any doubts this is the outcome?

Why would migrants voluntarily move to war-torn Ukraine? Particularly as long as they can just move westward toward Germany/France/the UK?

Even if Ukraine retains its sovereignty in this war and some kind of peace deal is struck and they get billions in recovery funding from the EU/NATO/whatever, they will still remain by far the poorest country in Europe for the next 15++ years.

Well, this is a top pilot, the one who is not so top ran into Shahed 2 years ago. It's like dying under the wheels of a newspaper delivery guy.

There's alot of context about what every war was about and the regional power dynamics. Most wars that lose public support are foreign expeditions where they had no right being there, like Vietnam or Afghanistan, or wars like WWI where you have a dragged out large regional conflict between states of relatively equal power.

For Russia this war is like if Mexico was at war with the USA and had been persecuting and slaughtering Americans within their borders and restricting their movement for years. And if Mexico was being armed en-masse by Russia, how would American morale fare over time? Losing morale would be literally surrendering your people and nation to a slow genocide

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 30 2024 12:46am

Afghanistan was literally bordering the USSR and had been taken over by hostile islamists, so that war is actually quite comparable to the Ukraine war (from Russia's pov).
That second analogy is a mess, man. So you're saying that Russia stopping its war effort now would be "literally surrendering their people and nation to slow genocide"? Seriously?

Like I've said two pages ago (and countless times before that throughout this thread): if Russia's primary goal was to protect the Russian-speaking population of the Donbass from being "genocided" by the "Azovites and the nazi regime in Kyiv", they could stop right now. This objective has already been accomplished, if that was their true motivation, they wouldn't need to keep on pushing forward into Ukrainian territory or to keep shelling Ukrainian cities.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 30 2024 01:51am

There are three goals. Denazification, demilitarization, liberation of Donetsk and Luhansk People Republics

This post was edited by Norlander on Aug 30 2024 02:46am

To keep Ukraine demilitarized, the Russians would need to keep troops permanently stationed as an occupying force. This so-called "denazification" would of course just be the pretext for large-scale purges of any non-pro-Russian elements of Ukraine's society, rather than narrowly targeted at the actual nazis. At the end of the day, those are just some fancy words for "our goal is the total subjugation of Ukraine".

Also, good luck with "denazifying" the Western Ukrainian regions around Lwiw and such which are the home base of Ukraine's ultranationalists.