this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
334 points (86.9% liked)

Political Memes

11994 readers
2080 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 88 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (18 children)

Ukraine are fighting for their survival. You can't put someone's back to the wall and expect them to make the most moral, clear-headed, rational decisions.

What they have right now is Western armaments and funding. What they don't have is an inexhaustible supply of manpower. And their enemy has a much bigger supply of manpower than they do. Developing more and better autonomous weapon systems is the most rational choice in the horrendous situation they've been placed in.

The ultimate moral responsibility here is not with Ukraine. If the world had taken Russia seriously as a threat when they took Crimea, if we had moved to provide serious and meaningful security guarantees to Ukraine and apply meaningful, effective punishments to Russia (like dumping their oil and gas, as we finally, begrudgingly started to do in 2022), none of this would have happened. Instead we threw them to the wolves, and now you're here wagging your finger at them for defending themselves any way they can.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago

Some of them don't know. One of my favorite jokes goes like this:

I work in a vacuum cleaner factory. My wife could use a vacuum cleaner, so I decided to take a different part home every day, so that eventually, I could build her a vacuum cleaner at home. But no matter how I assemble the parts I took, I always end up with a submachine gun.

It's from a German short film on napalm called The Inextinguishable Fire. Very short, worth a watch. Holds up.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days ago (8 children)

They're thinking "Russia has far more men than we do so we need to even the odds".

This comic is an absurdly naive take.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 46 points 5 days ago (43 children)

Having better weapons than your enemy will make you safer, yes. And when they've been trying to conquer you for a thousand years or so, I think that's a fair approach.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] makeshift0546@lemmy.today 36 points 4 days ago

What a naive position of comfort you're posting from 🤣

[–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 38 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

Looking back at human history and developing a bigger stick than your "neighbor" has, is a rather safe bet even if just to deter said "neighbor" from using their big stick.

For the autonomous drone point. See Ukraine vs russian conflict. Ukraine is heavily using drones to hold back russia, so yeah those are rather useful.

And as someone living next to russia, i cant wait when we get our hands on autonomous drones as a force multiplier.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They are thinking"if we don't they will" which is the same reason why we have so many nukes in the world now

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

"if we don’t they will"

They aren't wrong tho...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. If there's a belligerent opponent eyeing you, your best way to ensure peace is to make sure they know it'll hurt to attack you. If you look weak then they'll have no reason to not invade. It sucks that things are this way, but it's been true for as long as humans have desired something from another. This applies from a schoolyard bully to a bellicose nation.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago

That's why I never leave home without my napalm and child flaying device.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 days ago (9 children)

If we're not fighting yet, Mm having a deadlier weapon makes the cost of attacking me higher for my enemy, discouraging him. If we are already fighting, having a deadlier weapon will mean I kill more of them than they kill of us.

My enemy having a deadlier weapon makes it less costly to attack me, and makes them kill more of us.

So yes, having a deadlier weapon makes us more safe. The alternative to nobody having it is preferable, but that would require an enemy who will cooperate with me, which is a contradiction in terms.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›