I think this is the case because the west isn't used to fighting an enemy that can match their might.

Think Iraq. Why bother with a narrative? There is a certainty of victory, no damage will come to the west, and iraqi media sure as hell isn't reaching our audiences. So just make up an excuse, invade, and let people forget it until the next current thing.

But russia? It can fight back, it has political and economic leverage, it forces europe to suffer economically, it can inflict losses and shatter the image of nato equipment being unbeatable.

So the media has to scramble to find reasons why we should keep fighting the russians, because our collective subconscious knows that fighting russia is a bad idea in general. The result of this scrambling is a lot of contrasting narratives that keep contradicting each other. Specially because russia itself has the power to counter western narratives and highlight the falsehoods.

Remember Soledar for example? "the situation is difficult but we are holding" until russians started posting selfies from inside the town and it became clear that the UAF had been routed from there days ago.

Or also when they kept claiming that reddit truesim that "attackers suffer 7 times more casualties" during the battle of Bakhmut an excuse to support the "we are grinding them down by losing" narrative. Now ukraine is attacking and people are asking "wait a second, we were told attackers take 7 times more losses, how is ukraine affording this?"

In short, much like they are not used to fighting competent enemies on the ground, they are not used to fighting competent enemies in the media/internet arena. The result is a clusterfuck of lies covered by other lies as soon as they get found out.

Remember that most of them actually believe ua pravda when it says that russians fight with shovels

Oh no! Anyway

it's so funny to see lengths NAFO bots will go to turn everything into a victory.

a tank was supposed to reach x, but it got blown up halfway through? "But the crew (according to our unsubstantiated speculation) made it out! the mission was a total success!"

a pmc fielding an army of untrained convicts took over the most fortified city in europe after systematically dismantling the defenses put up by dozens of thousands of ukrainian servicemen? "we inflicted casualties! 1 to 182748 casualty rate favoring the defender because reddit says so! total win!"

the counteroffensive gets obliterated by KA-52 and fails to even get close to the first defense line? "probing attacks! We got their attention! Huge victory! Heil Hi... ehrm, Slava Ukraini!

don't you know that Ukraine is actually a libsoc utopia?

rather simp for someone opposing nato expansion than for a neonazi puppet regime staffed by people handpicked by the CIA. I swear you liberals refuse on purpose to understand that in the grand scheme of things the action of a "bad guy" can still be beneficial.

Russia isn't conquering the world anytime soon. So what would you rather have? a more multipolar world where russia has a relatively safe and solid position after showing that it won't be bullied into submission by nato (with the whole world watching), or a world where russia is balkanized into several statelets without the political, economic or military strength to resist capitalist infiltration?

We saw what happened last time russia got defeated. We lost a bastion of socialism, we saw tens of millions impoverished while a few capitalits dismantled everything that the USSR had built, and the whole thing ushered 40 years of hegemonic atlantist domination.

So yeah, i am rooting for the "neoliberal protofascist dictatorship". There is a reason why literally nobody in the global south sanctioned Russia. 75% of the planet is reasoning the same way i am.

I think people have this notion that revolutions in history have been brought about by groups of people that shared the exact same ideology and magically agreed on everything.

This won't, ever, be the case.

We advance our goals by using our voices to influence leftist movements from within, by being radical streams in the big umbrella of "leftism".

I have been a member of the local socialist (socdem) party for a decade, and a local leader in the youth wing. 95% of the times i disagree with the party line. But being there gives me the chance to introduce new ideas, to at least start a debate. Our regional section is the only one that opposed exporting arms to Ukraine, and me and my small clique of radicals are the reason for it. Swiss tanks would be rolling around the Donbass if people like me and my comrades were stuck in our own small ideological sect with 14 members and 0.07% of the vote.

It's not about gloriously leading the people in a long march towards our specific ideals. It's about working in the background to slowly, piece by piece, build a consciousness of geopolitics and class warfare. It's about saying that one sentence that will provoke someone to think differently for once.

And then Iran, Argentina, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Egypt... BRICS will soon be controlling a vast majority of the global economy AND population. It's exciting, we may actually live to see the end of western hegemony

What even is the point? Do the taliban actually think they can go in the offensive against Iran? I really don't get what's the plan here

tbh Bing can have them, tf are they going to do? be even more irrelevant?

Rendered bacon fat instead of oil

we will show them the power of superior ML organizing capabilities