RetroFedLeo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Instance: infosec.pub
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 0
Comments: 50
Posts and Comments by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Posts by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
Comments by Leo Dal Pozzo, leodalpozzo@infosec.pub
EuropeBeside yours being a wrong premise, you are still wrong: the nazis literally started the war the way you described it. They sent German infiltrators dressed as polish soldiers to attack a radio station. They then claimed Poland attacked first, so they declared war to them and that’s when the invasion started (Gleiwitz incident). Maybe before calling people dishonest fools you should have a minimal idea of what you are talking about.
Yeah right, calling your points childish was such a terrible offense in an adult conversation that you are forced to stop the conversation. I’m sure that’s the reason ;)
I’m not accusing you of being an apologist for Russian war crimes even though I could characterize you that way
Why? Because i criticise Ukraine i am necessarely on Russia’s side? I literally said in the comment before that nothing excuses Russia from attacking civilian structures, as much as i think Russia’s governemnt is a criminal for invading Ukraine and causing death and destruction. Is after saying this my opinion still going to be discarded because comes by a putinist in your mind?
I don’t think it’s fair to take the reasoning of my position and say it’s something a “nazi would be proud of”. A Nazi would not be putting this level of thought into the morality of war crimes, and you know this.
I understand i sound harsh, but i think it’s very important ot be clear here: your line of thinking is exactly what allowed the holocaust and other war crimes and crimes agaisnt humanity to happen. if you really think nazis didn’t evaluate their morality in doing what they did, i strongly suggest you to take a deeper look at conflicts and not banalise them as “the good guys with their beautiful morality” “and the bad guys which clearly are the bad guys because they don’t haver any morality”. This is not how conflicts, the world or human beings work. Conflicts have always a cause and who starts them always thinks they are doing for a just cause.
I think the world isn’t black and white in morality, and I think it’s naive to act as though it is. Immoral actions are sometimes warranted, I think. Do you agree with that principle at all? If not, we just have different moral views.
I do agree absolutely there is no black and white, but i’m the one who you accused of being a “russian apologist” becuase i criticise Ukraine’s behaviour in this war. Isn’t that a black and white kind of thinking? It’s important to not circumstanciate principles, but adopt them widely. Otherwise they are just a gimmick to push somebody’s point.
You can’t, in my view, tell victims of war crimes that they can’t respond in any meaningful way when you aren’t willing to enforce the law against the perpetrator. Another context that’s important. You can only morally tell people to let rule of law work when rule of law is being enforced; you can’t tell them to rely on a justice system that is non existent.
We are not discussing about responding in a “meaningful way”, here we are talking about allowing attacks against civilian and civilian infrastructure as a response. Your line of thinking could be used the same way by Al-Qaida ("The americans killed us for decades and nobody cared, so we had to attack them with terrorism because it’s the only efficient way to hit them"), ISIS/Daesh ("Our people have been subject of a western crusade, we answer back with our own"), Hamas and any other reprehensible group that uses terrorism as a form of attack because they feel they have no other way to hit their enemy. Do you see how dangerous is that way of thinking and in what terrible spiral sends people?
It’s really worrying that people cna write stuff like that and not realising there is something wring with it. Literally justifying crimes against himanity with the moat silly and childish reasoning.
Jesus christ this kind of thought is how genocides happen. You are literally saying if nobody can force me to have a moral, then i’m justified to behave as inhumane as my enemy. This is a line of thinking that a nazi gerarc woukd be proud of. Stay human people, we are getting very close to a world of barbarism.
I’m ok with people dieing. I’m not ok with people being murdered. Doesn’t matter if i like or not the people that kill. And yes this works for Russia too, but attacking civilian infrastructure is a crime as much as it is bombing civilian infrastructure. Seems to me that a lot of people are willing to justify any action taken by Ukraine because it’s in self defense, even if that means committing war crimes. People ask themselves how the holocaust happened and at the same time they are ok justifying any sort of atrocities against their enemies. We are a primitive species that was given lethal tools.
It’s refreshing to hear reasonable takes in a world where people are willing to accept any crime made by the faction they like if they do them against the faction they don’t like.
World NewsHey thanks for reaching out. I had a personal lemmy instance few years ago, but then life changed and i abandoned it. This thing of communities defederating each others for ridiculus reasons it’s really embarassing and annoying, i think i’ll go back to make my own instance because being able to see only part of the conversation is absurd.
Early on I tried to warn you, that you will not get any kind of open or constructive discussion in this community
I was aware of this :) my point was not to try to convince the person i’m interact with, but to show the people that are reading that there is a good and a bad way to study and analyze conflicts. Hopefully some reader got something out of it. I expect and don’t mind the downvotes.
Thanks for the links and for the suggestions, they are appreciated. I’ll take a look later today. Have a great day and thanks for caring
This comment shows your real colours and how actually shallow you are. You don’t have anything to back up your claims, you say at the same time that the drones are russian jammed and that they are a deliberate attack to test defenses. You don’t realise that a lot of people having a feeling doesn’t transform that feeling on a fact. Especially if that feeling is carefully crafted by a gigantic media machine. Easier for you to call me Tankie, Russia-friendly, even nazi even if the only thing to back this up is that i disagree with your “analysis”. You are just the result of a sick society where people are tought that ther opinion always matters even when based on other people’s opinion only and when confronted can only shut the door and close themselves in their own bubble. That’s ok, i hope you people will not drag us all to doom thanks to your armchair analysis based on a youtube video.
There is a difference between foreign politics and using Cambridge Analytica style tactics on the population of a neighboring country. If you are so aware about propaganda, you should also see the difference in scale here.
You are using one of the biggest AMERICAN scandal to say that Russia is doing the same. Do you see the issue here?
Electronic warfare can make drones go off course
Yes, that’s exactly my point. the drones that we are being told are just a signal of an impending military attack from Russia, most of the times are just jammed Ukrainians drones
Regarding the Missile Strike: Would that AMRAAM have been fired if Russia hadn’t sent 20 Drones into Polish airspace via Belarus? 1,2,3 drones can be a mistake or caused by jamming, 20 are a planned operation.
Again you are just parroting a viewpoint that it’s just an opinion and pure speculation. No fact proves that it was a deliberate attack.
They are already saying they are fighting NATO!
NATO countries are providing to Ukraine weapons, ammunitions, intelligence, specialised troops (for the pointing system of some air defence systems), fundings, GPS and target data. Doesn’t seem so crazy for me that they are saying they are fightning NATO. Equipare that to the possibility of Russia actively attacking a NATO country is a choice based on your feelings, not really a fact.
The economic ties were used to make us addicted to russian oil and gas; it nearly worked.
So they wanted to make addicted to their gas and oil so they could declare war to us later and stop that commerce entirely? i don’t see the logic
I say that the economic ties that Russia prepared (UNDER PUTINS WATCH) were nothing else than an attempt to make sure Europe stays silent when Russia uses their military to expand once again.
So Russia has built strong economic ties with the EU so that when Russia would attack the EU (so basically NATO), the EU will stay silent and let them do? This is literally nonsense.
You may try again, but this time try to be less pro-russia in your arguments, because there isn’t any difference between someone who is pro-russia and a fucking nazi to me, and i do not converse with nazis, i punch them.
I engaged in this conversation because i assumed an open mindset and an academic approach towards the issue. You ask for sources but the only one you provide is a youtube video and based on the flimsiness of your claims, that’s probably the maximum extent at which you “study” conflicts. Then you end the speech with a pathetic tirade over nazis to show how though you are and obviously hinting at the fact that, at one point you had to say it, i’m pro-russia in your mind. I really try to have a discussion that doesn’t end in a toddler-level conversation or people just choosing a faction like if it was a footbal team, but if this is the level of the conversation i don’t see benefits in continuing it.
It is a fact that Russia has been attacking and influencing the politics of it’s neighbors for the last decades
Every single country in the world has been doing this since the invention of politics. the US has literally military bases in most countries, but you don’t seem as worried about them despite they are the one who waged infinite wars for the past 70 years.
It’s hard to believe that they didn’t eye the possibility of grabbing land of european countries before they got bogged down in Ukraine.
It’s easier to believe when you look at the history of Russia, their claims (believable or not, their claims is their justifications toward their own people, so they have to stick to those). the fact that attacking an alliance of 30 countries is insane and unsellable to the Russians, that a War with europe will cut completely disrupt commerce and that will be devastating for the Russian economy itself, resulting in making Putin weaker and he definitely doesn’t want that. Some more: Russia has spent billions in resources to build economical ties with Europe, like the north stream. It’s unplausible that at the same time they plotted to attack the very alliance they spent decades building encomic ties with.
For this i demand Sources. You seem to have them, so it shouldn’t be an issue to provide?
Your skeptic tone seems to give for assumed that my sources are unreliable. Fair enough, i just wish you would apply the same skepticism also to the news you like. Anyway:
- Latvia’s Defense Minister Steps Down After Ukrainian Drones Hit Oil Tanks (Kyivpost)
- List of Ukrainian incursions to Finnish and Baltic airspace in 2026 (Wikipedia)
- The russian drone that hit the polish house and killed two people that was pushed for days on EU news? Was actually a polish missile
The damaging of the residential building in Wyryki caused a scandal domestically, with Prime Minister Donald Tusk being accused of attempting to cover up that the damage was caused by a Polish missile; furthermore, President Karol Nawrocki and the National Security Bureau had allegedly not been informed of the Polish origin of the missile.[42]
While there is no doubt that some Russian drones are jammed and fall on NATO or EU countries. There is no proof, only political speculation, about these drones being sent on purpose by Russia to attack. What we know for sure is that, so far, the drones that created real damages were all Ukrainian. You are free to justify this, but changing the facts because more convenient that way is propaganda.
It doesn’t get more transparent than that in a war situation.
But all the things you listed don’t seem to have anything to do with the progress in the battlefield, but more with the politics that surround them. There are way more diverse interests when it comes to that. It’s not as important as showing Ukraine as the winning part in the war, which is fundamental to keep the public opinion on their side and therefor continue the stream of funds and armaments toward Ukraine.
I don’t know what reporting you “watch” i just hope it’s not some random youtuber, but instead you are using accademical sources or at least their methodology.
What other viewpoint would you like to be represented?
Don’t get me wrong. Anyone who studied history and a bit of military history know that propaganda from both sides is core to every single conflict that ever happened in the world. It’s natural and expected that Ukrainian propaganda is pushed ad nauseam to all allies countries in the conflict. This worked very well, because if you dare to doubt it you are immediately called a putinist, so the conversation die there. Look at propaganda posters from WWI and WWII of all sides and you will see a lot of similarities with today’s narrative or even better, look how Napoleon was presented in european propaganda in the 19th century.
Personally, i would really like that people would learn how to inform themselves, and i would like that more voice would be given to accademic experts or people that study war for a living. Instead we hear only politicians and what is convenient to hear: a lot of drones appear across Europe, everyone immediately assume they are Russian and that’s what get pushed in the news for days, but then when the military apparatus (so relatively disconnected from the political goals of the country) of some of the most anti-russian countries, like Latvia and Poland, say that the drones are actually almost entirely Ukranians, that information get posted only on specialised outlets or maximum a couple of lines in a single newspaper to never be mentioned again. Nobody seems also to care that several intelligence agencies of multiple countries (again Poland and Latvia in primis) keep saying that there are no signs of Russian preparing an attack to Europe, but still, this is not the message that we receive by our politicians and news, because it’s not politically convenient. Instead anything that gives the feeling that Russia could attack europe any second get amplified out of proportions. Isn’t the aim more than clear there?
People are not making informed choices and the information they receive is carefully crafted to go in a single direction. As i said this has been normal in every conflict that ever happend. Also the thing of thinlking ours is good propaganda and theirs is bad propaganda is regular stuff during a war. I’m personally very worried because nuclear war is right behind the corner.
You are still presenting a very partial viewpoint, where Ukrainian outles are considered fair and attempting to be transparent while the other sode doesn’t. I’m very interested and study “military things” and i have studied this conflict for about 7 years now, so i hope i can bring a useful viewpoint. If you actually want to study a conflict or conflicts in general, it’s fundamental to be as close as poasible to the sources and unserstand the problem of uncritically accepting the viewpoint coming from one of the two belligerants. Labelling people from an entire instance “putinist” is already a red flag for me. I’ve been called putinist a million time just because i invite people to have a more accademic and historical-based approach to this and other conflicts. My opinion of Putin doesn’t seem to interest to anyone, if i don’t glorify Ukraine and agree with every piece of propaganda they push, i’m definitely with the ebemy.
A great example is the Institute for the study of war, which is the main source for western media about Ukraine. They are a huge propaganda machine that sell themselves as neutral but it’s an absolutely pro-ukraine source. I read their reports almost daily and they tought me a great deal of the power of propaganda in war times. A great example is the recent worldwide celebration for Russia apparently not gaining as much terrain as they used to and even Ukrain gaining some. This is all over the news, but when you go look it up you find out that this reversion on the battlefield happen when the ISW added a new item to their maps: “russian infiltrations”. Now if they see only few soldiers advancing in an area is not considered an advancement, but an infiltration, which doesn’t get reported in the maps (edit: i meant to say in the final calculation of the kilometers lost/gained, not maps). No newspaper seems to be interested in pointing this out to clarify the data they give us, the same way as nobody mention that the sources of the ISW are for the almost totality either the Ukrainian defense ministry or telegram channels affiliated with combating units. None of these sources will give reliable or objective information.
I understand not trusting russian news, i don’t trudt them either, but i found way more interesting to stufy the discrepancies in the sources we are presented as reliable.
My criticism is not about the news outlet itself, even if, as the earlier responder to my comment pointed out, they make bold and unsourced claims, which is bad journalism practice, even if very common nowadays. My point is that every day this sub is bombarded with news about the war coming from ukrainian outlets, which will be of course extremely partial, as they have to be if they want to keep writing under martial law. I never see a russian domain posting news here because they would be rightfully considered unreliable. I’m amazed that instead every single ukrainian website is allowed here even if it’s clear propaganda (euromaidanpress the worst offender) that uses as sources almost exclusively communication from the government or the state apparatus. We are being bombarded with one sided news that come directly from the Ukrainian state. That’s not less propaganda because we are sympathetic with the country that it’s producing it.
I just hoped that at least here there would be more attention, care and quality of the discussion.
Both, but i have a problem with the fact that propaganda is not supposed to be allowed here, but i see daily streams of dubious websites pushing bold and completely unsourced claims. I feel that they are allowed because that’s the propaganda people like. I really hope i would find conversations of higher level around here, but so far it has been quite disappointing
Political Memes@lemmy.world
Almost funny, until we remember that thanks to their iperindividualism and right wing mentality we have had constant wars for the last 70 years.
Isn’t in this sub propaganda forbidden or only matters when the propaganda is from Russia? I get bombarded daily and it’s becoming a bit ridiculus, especially because the level is really low. Is this a place for news or for people to push their own favourite propaganda outlet? I would understand if it was from reliable sources, but jeusus anything posted from a .ua domain seems to be allowed no matter what. Feels like being on reddit.
Aren’t the weapon provides bu the US already paid by the EU?
Or don’t do little miningless things that give you the excuse to not do anything about the real problems.
Ask LemmyI came back here after a long time and i had the same feeling. I think has more to do with the level of the discussion at large nowadays, more than the platform itself.
I’ll add one that supersedes all the other you listed: stop making sacrifices while the rich are the ones destroying the planet and build a guillottine.
Talking about it openly already creates a big diplomatical issue and embarassment for Israel, which might very much be his main goal.
Right, “you were just doing your job” …
Yes, and you could have answered “thanks for your input, but we are going to stick with our rules because we have our reasons”, instead you basically tell me “Doesn’t matter what you think, these are the rules and you must respect them. No discussion allowed”. I mean sure, you make the rules, but the way you enforce them and react to criticism speaks for itself.
So if we celebrated hitler’s death we lack humanity? People should be free to celebrate a death if they feel to. Forcing your idea of a moral code over people is not nice. We are not talking about celebrating violence, a crime or wishing for somebody’s death.
People should be free to express their feelings if they don’t hurt anyone, without having to fear the morality police. The point of modorators should be to create a welcoming and safe space, not to impose your morality on others.
Your point was about trust tho. How can somebody trust Russia after they turned out to be unreliable? What i’m asking is, how is this not an even more valid question toward the US and instead we give for assumed our uncodnditional allegiance? Seems like a relationship more similar to that between vassal and overlord.
Maybe i don’t, but what i learned in these years of studying history and military history tends to conflict to people’s opinion when it’s based on very strong feelings and not much more.
I disagree with a lot of your claims that are at the base of the conversation, like the relationship bretween Russia and China (which have an actual military alliance and it’s not a hidden thing) or the state of the battlefield in Ukraine, which is not as flowery as you make it and Ukraine finds themselves in a very critical condition, despite western media focusing on their very succesful strikes inside Russia, which i agree make appear as if Ukraine is in a much stronger position than they actually are. Still, I do appreciate that nobody called me “Putin’s bot” yet, it’s a great improvement over reddit.
I see your point, but i don’t think that alone is a reason strong enough, or nobody should have any trust in the USA as well. On the exact same premises.
No. My assumption is that Trump did very well politically in not trying to defend himself publicly from the accusation, but to stir the focus on him being persecuted because he wants to fight corruption in the governemnt. More he was ridiculed, more his point of being “the outsider that is fighting the big corrupt powers” gained credibility in the eyes of potential voters.
Nothing? You have as a president a felon suspected of pedophily that has no shame in insulting allies and enemies, who insults journalists and heads of state publicly without consequences and has sent gestapo in the streets. The first time i could have said as well that it’s business as usual and he was just another guy voted with the belly, but now he is openly behaving like he does things because he can. It never happened before. The rule of law has no meaning anymore, he can openly behave as a king with little to no challenge in the US. That’s the opposite of nothing. What is happening now in the US has never happened in the last 70 years.
It’s extremely accurate in my opinion (and not only mine, you’ll find many articles about this subjext on virtually any US newspaper). Half of the merit of trump’s victory is no doubt because of the dems and their inhability to talk to people and to relate to them. Choosing Kamala Harris as opponent, with her patronising tone, inhability to take clear stances on sensitive subject and classic politician way of talking was the nail to the coffin. If this is not understood, get ready for many more trumps in the future.
I guess you mean military power here. How do you achieve that without rearming?
This is the assumption that i’m challenging. Obviously, to make people accept spending billions in rearming there must be the threat of becoming a victim dangling above our head, hence the constant scaremongering about Russia attacking a NATO country any moment. Before were the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea… at moments it’s China, sometimes it’s Iran. There is constantly an enemy to defend from, which justifies military spending.
And this scared instinctive reaction, which ignores any other factor that isn’t pure and irrational fear (pumped and justified by the state apparatus of every single NATO country) is how the weapons industry is laughing their way to the bank, while we leave in fear because of yet another enemy at the doors.
This is not true. The maginot line was easily avoided by the German and any war historian will tell you that it was a stupid and stupidly expensive idea. In no way it was a threat to the German invasion.
And so forth, right. You are proving my point. What’s the “so forth”? Russia feels more threatened and feel forced to rearm themselves. Europe sees russia rearm themselves and say “they are getting stronger, we need to rearm even more”. Does anybody expect Russia or anybody else to say “Hey our enemies are rearming themselves, better stop producing weapons and start diplomatic relations instead!” Did this ever happen? Does anyone expect it to happen? No, but we have countless proofs of the opposite happening. This is WWI all over again. I wish people would study history to see that the things they are saying are not new, they were said in past and the results were always disastrous.
Is any of the people who praise the rearming have an idea of what happens in case of war with Russia? Did people forget that they are in a military alliance with China, Iran and N. Korea? How do you think a war in this situation will look like? Do you think the world will survive it?
So what’s the end goal? Start a war to stop a war? Arms race have very often ended with war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union disintegrated from the inside, using it as an example of a “succesful” rearming race feels intellectually dishonest, especially when we have countless of examples of arms race ending in war.
What you are saying is misleading from many pojnts of view:
Exactly. We know very well that 1st world war started because europe was in full rearming, but some powers felt that war was inevitable and was better to do it sooner than later.
War is not a video game or a movie. You are banalizing an extremely complex subject.
This is a bit naive. War and conflicts are way more complicatee than “one lunatic in the world”. Conflicts have always a reason. We can agree with it or not, but believing it’s all caused by one monster leader that it’s followed blindly by the people is just a very common propaganda point, which has been used for the last >2000 years and in basically every conflict we knoe about. One of the main reason armed conflicts happen is because each side feels the other one is rearming. This becomes a circle and a spiral that it’s hard to stop, especially when the arms industry has such ppwerful lobbies.
“If you want peace prepare war” right? Now let’s look how many years of peace the romans had in their entire history thanks to this doctrine.
This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. This kind of mentality allowed two world wars to happen. Stop looking at geopolitics like if it was a football game. It’s not the politicians dragging us into war, it’s common people giving for assumed war is inevitable. You all will be the world’s distruction once again. It’s really insane how humans have the tendency to repeat history despite having knowledge of it.
Please inform yourself about it then, because that would change the entire discussion. This is an entire field of study, it’s not hidden stuff.
I agree they shouldn’t have a platform and visibility. Definitely shouldn’t be normalised. Shaming them and isolating them is HOW their ideas grew so much. The key is to invalidate their points with arguments, even if they don’t listen, it’s important they are out there and visible to other potential viewers. If you cannot do that because you are isolated from the fascist/flat earthers or whatever, their bubble will grow constantly because they talk to the belly of the people, and these folks will look for the opinions their belly tells them their are right. This is how we got wehere we are now. People saw something they could relate to when they heard these extremists complain about immigrants, corrupted system, secret plots to rule the world. Without access to a counter argument (becuase of the isolation) the spiral started to go deeper and deeper, until full extremization. We have seen something similar with covid.
For example i think banning Hitler’s Mein Kampf, like they do in Germany, is a mistake. The only copies in circulations will be from people that probably simpatize with him and there will be little or no control over the content, which could be altered. This is very dangerous. If the book is freely available there could be laws that force to have notes on the book, which explain why Hitler was a bullshitter and out of his mind. People will be in contact with this content if they look for that book for any reason, it’s not a small thing. They will still find the “altered” copies, but they will be much less attractive (not fascinating because forbidden and easy to find) then will be much easier to see the alteration and to counter it. I hope my point is clearer now