this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
265 points (99.3% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6757 readers
772 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo 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


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 54 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Last 10 years showed how pathetic Russian foreign policy really is.

Great power can't maintain its bases... That ain't a great power that's a failed empire wanna be

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never really felt Russia had much of a dog in the Syrian Civil War. I always assumed their interest in Assad was purely to grind American efforts in the region.

Willing to bet they'll just as soon support the new regime or its opposition based on the same calculus.

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They needed enough stability for their bases...

Assad was the guy, they will work with the new guy if he let's them.

But new guy is turkey affiliate so he prolly will not let Russians stay.

Turkey never liked Russians being there so them getting deposed isn't great news for them.

Turkey is winning big time in the region first Armenia and now Syria

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There's more. Tartus was russian logistics base for their various African activities, like wagner in Mali or supporting Haftar in Lybia (there's still civil war going on there remember?) Turks do not want to see support for Haftar, so Tartus and Latakia bases need to go. Maybe they'd try to get Assad back and try him in exchange for letting bases stay in some capacity

Also there are some rumors about SDF advancing in Deir-ez-Zor getting evidence that russians did a few false flags as ISIS, so there's that

This is on top of this "we don't want the people who bombed our hospitals" thing. There's probably a few more layers that i don't even know are there

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Too credible.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Except Erdogan likes Putin, even purchasing Russian s400 rockets despite being a NATO member and offered US patriot systems. Its why the first Trump administration had to sanction them and remove them from f35 eligibility.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 week ago

It's less that Erdogan likes Putin, Erdogan will strike a deal with anyone for his own gain. He was manoeuvring between west and east, but now it's turkish vs russian interests and he won't let it go, unless he trades it for something else. But this time russians have little to offer, and are much more openly hostile to NATO

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 1 week ago

I can give million examples of doing shit to show other wise...

He shot down a Russian fighter jet...

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

Russia's army is a sloppy and disobedient one, the Russian emperor entirely relies on the power of having the keys to unshackle Fenrir.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

on a more credible note, I’ve taken to checking ISW every day for a good Ukraine recap

Edit: I apologize for the credible comment. Posted from Saddam’s spider hole.