• fiat_lux@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are they? It’s difficult for me to tell given I have a language barrier and the vast majority of English-language information is obviously supportive of Ukraine. From what I have understood, it seems that Russia has gained a modest amount of land at significant cost in terms of human lives and internal political stability.

    But I am also unsure how much I hear about the civil discontent is reflective of the actual Russian situation, beyond average pacifist sentiment. “Their society is in turmoil!” sorts of stories have been used in past conflicts to keep up public support for wars by making it sound like victory is around the corner.

    Discriminating signal from noise in war media requires really active constant effort that I just can’t maintain long term when there are so many conflicts. As much as I want to. I also think the whole thing has been lose-lose for people and the environment, but that’s another topic altogether.

      • fiat_lux@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thanks, this seems like a sensible analysis that also accords with my knowledge of the situation prior to the current fighting. The conclusions drawn reflect the outcomes we have seen from other recent internationally-backed conflicts, which makes sense.

        As always, the losers are the people who live inside the actual disputed territory, regardless of their background or political affiliations. It won’t be Putin’s or Zelenskyy’s children who step on the landmines long after the shooting stops. No matter how many countries say they commit to remove them.