this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23116 readers
292 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Need some links to share with someone to dispell the smol bean ukraine myth

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] woodenghost@hexbear.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, thanks, I get it.

it goes into great detail regarding US/NATO involvement in the conflict and reveals how it is in-fact a NATO Russia proxy war rooted in NATO's goals of expansion and destabilizing Russia.

Totally. It's easy to forget, that this is not obvious for libs.

From the AI summary:

  1. Incidents of Strategic Misalignment: The sinking of the Russian warship Moskva in April 2022 highlighted friction in the partnership. While Ukrainians viewed it as a triumph, U.S. officials reacted with "anger, surprise, and panic" because they had not intended to enable strikes on high-profile symbols of Russian power like the Black Sea Fleet flagship .

This is one of the points that I was sceptical about when reading the original article. I'm ready to believe, that intelligence was shared that lead to the destruction of the ship. But I don't think intentions or emotional reactions can be reliably established. I mean, yes, it could have been this way and maybe that's exactly how it happened. Or, maybe, they totally did share this intelligence on purpose. I can easily imagine an editor or pentagon contact going: "well in this case we can't really say we wanted that escalation, it doesn't quite fit the reasonable image we want to get across to our audience, oh, I know, just say it wasn't intentional, that'll work and also spice up the story nicely "

[โ€“] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 6 days ago

I completely agree. Engaging in proxy warfare is largely about establishing the illusion of plausible deniability after all. I suppose it was careless of me to not add a disclaimer. I assumed most comrades here would know to separate the opinion from fact, but you can never be too cautious.