…Nothing in that article says Russia supports the coup government. It doesn’t mention a Russian stance at all; it just says the coup government has asked Wagner for support (which it does not say has been given).
You’ve now ignored for a second time how stupid it is to think Russia engineered this, then simultaneously tried to hide it/paid locals to wave Russian flags around.
I asked you what your theory is on the situation and you responded by putting words in my mouth.
Again, do you think Russia engineered this, only to deny it, only to pay people to waive Russian flags around?
On attempting to enter Russia on July 29, the group of Chinese citizens was “repeatedly” questioned for “up to 4 hours,” according to the statement. They had their tourist visas canceled and were refused entry, it said.
Yawn
So your theory is:
Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…
Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.
The U.S. hasn’t fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren’t a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).
Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically
Is this sarcasm or an honest question?
Any attempt to overthrow a lawful government must be opposed
A totally ridiculous statement right out of the gate. Either actions against lawful governments are sometimes justified (how many Americans would say they would have opposed rebelling against the lawful British rule of the colonies?), or you redefine “lawful” to support whatever revolutions you want, making this statement empty.
If you believe anything the U.S. has to say about fighting Islamic extremists after Iraq and Afghanistan…
After the U.S. spent the last 20 years indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of people (at minimum!) throughout the world under the guise of fighting Islamic extremists, it’s disgusting to trot out concern for lives as a defense of continuing the same failed policies.
I won’t disagree that the US has short-sightedly funded a lot of mujahideen fighters including recently some questionable groups in Syria, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re directly opposed to the Islamists in Saharan Africa.
“This time it’s different, I swear, just give me one more undeclared forever war”
Ukraine has liberated 74,443 km² or 28,743 square miles since the start of the invasion
The front lines have remained basically static since Fall '22.
…a forum post, where you might actually have something resembling a real discussion, is of course preferable to someone who thinks you’re an idiot bothering you in your DMs.
Tells their users to follow the rules = it’s a ruse, they’re trolls
Tells their users to troll = see, they’re trolls!
Says nothing = they aren’t even trying to stop their users from trolling
This is what we call an unfalsifiable orthodoxy.
Are we a strictly pro-NATO server or something?
Functionally, yes.
There is nothing wrong with following the rules and being “subversive.” That is literally just challenging people’s ideas.
As others have pointed out, the population of the whole fediverse is currently less than a bunch of subreddits with far less than 4.3 million users. Mod/admin energy shouldn’t be taken for granted, but people are way overstating the potential for issues.
A game thread on any popular sporting event has way more comments and problems than basically any post in the history of this place.
Why would a ban on one instance merit a ban on another? Instances have different rules for reasons.
The U.S. has fought maybe two justified wars in its existence, but trust me, this one is good for real!
This seems futile, but it’s a decent point to hammer on. Libs who believe international law means something get put in the uncomfortable position of rethinking that, it’s more grounded than “I disagree with this as a matter of policy,” and you’ll smoke out plenty of people who will show their asses with “that shit doesn’t apply to us” takes.