this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
814 points (99.2% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6598 readers
771 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It seems to me that people keep begging on Ukraine. How about Russia was all of that and a bag of chips but Ukraine was developed for decades of Soviet rule to be a troop sponge where wave after wave of nato troops die and die and die keeping Russia safe.
Ukraine was made to be a rock on which superior armies dash themselves on until they break apart.
After seeing how NATO advised the Ukrainian counter attack to go I’m certain Russia would be in Poland by now if NATO was on the ground.
NATO losing to Russia in a direct conflict? Truly non credible, my brain worm friend.
On paper it isn’t even close.
NATO is not even willing to let someone else fight and win but magically when the casualties are theirs they’re totally gonna own the Russians?
It’s the same kind of numerical thinking that lead most of the world to think Russia was going to win in the opening weeks of the attack on Kiev . More money and better weapons will equal a quick and decisive win.
Russia has absorbed many hundreds of thousand of casualties. Ukraine has no choice but to fight .
Reasonable chance that NATO has trouble sustaining support for the kind of troop losses needed for a war.
Your mindset is based on the shallowness of an acute modern opinion that disregards history as much as it does immediate reality and humanism.
Or, to put it simply; you have as much growing up to do as you do learning the basics—at least to contribute in this forum.
You're new to this. Your opinion matters, but isn't valuable. It seems valuable to you now, but isn't to others. That's your first step forward to knowledge.
There is too much to cover here.
As I said earlier, you clearly have minimal alignment of the primary understandings most others have. For starters, it's clear you don't even understand the premise of NATO.
This is like me projecting opinions about cars when I think they're made of wood and drawn by horses.
You're either a troll or you're peaking on the Dunning-Kruger graph based on some obscure and narrow-scoped details you may have garnered. It's so small picture and fundamentally flawed or entirely untrue.