cross-posted from: https://thelemmy.club/post/52097499
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
64 points (91.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
8253 readers
424 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a basic history concept is it not? Combined with WW2 fact
Russia - whether it wants to or not - always ends up fighting wars in a slow meat grinder way, but because of uts superior pooulation it wins every 'War of attrittion' against another european power.
Germany on the eastern front did manage to push into russia but, as per usual, the cold and the lack of infrastructure (settlements more spaced out than in core Europe) causes immense suffering for them - eventually they are driven back. Many casualties, of course.
So i say that because i'm baffked why someone would know the top statement and need to be corrected with the bottom one. People should learn both together - the WW2 fact - and with it, the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.
You don't need history to know this is bullshit. Current events are enough to prove this wrong.
Hey now hey now. We're at the end of history. It died with my inner child.
But since you insist, let me amend my statement to simply say russia "war of attritions" better than anyone else.
Afganistan
Russia didn't win World War I, nor the Afghanistan war. Both would have been wars of attricion, according to my understanding.
I'll need to read up on afghanistan war but for ww1 i'd say that russia lost because it had a revolution co-occuring and it was already a collapsing country
Actually, they had a revolution because they were loosing the war, not the other way round. Just as Germany did not loose WW1 because they had a revolution, but they had a revolution because they lost the war. It was a famous conspiracy theory among fascist and monarchists, that Germany would have won otherwise, leading to some unfortunate events 20 years later.
And history books would say that the revolution occurred because Russia lost (and specifically the Tsar lost, after publicly announcing he was taking control and stop the stream of Russian defeats).
Also if they couldn't win the war, they shouldn't have started it in the first place. That they were unable to recognise their own military strength and started a war that would destroy them is a failure in and of itself. And to clarify, I'm talking about WW1 not Ukraine here.
I think Russian leadership over-learned that fact a bit, resulting in the mess they are in now.
Maybe Russia has won every defensive war of attrition, but certainly not every war its embarked on.
I don't know how attritional the crimean war was, but it was certainly a defensive war Russia lost.
I think 'defensive' makes it true. Do we have any exceptions historians of lemmy?