A coordinated online campaign has reportedly encouraged users to alter fuel station information on digital maps across Russia, creating confusion among drivers.
The activity involves changing station statuses by marking locations with available fuel as empty or showing closed stations as operational.
Supporters of the campaign claim the effort is designed to disrupt travel decisions, increase uncertainty, and create additional pressure around fuel availability.
I mean, they have plenty of time it seems - unlike the conscripts in the trenches.
Makes sense to use that time to further disrupt the enemy’s populace and hopefully sabotage domestic support further
Much nicer than being shot at, like the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are forced to. Plus, you get to say things like “the enemy” from the security of your couch! o7
What’s your point here? People who aren’t actively fighting in direct combat shouldn’t discuss the events or participate in any efforts to sabotage the aggressor?
You’re pretending to be doing something while conscripts die for the war you cheerlead, chickenhawk.
You’re more pathetic and disgusting than a plain coward. At least they don’t try and pretend they’re involved
I’m not doing anything. I’m not pretending to do anything. I’m not pretending to be involved at all. I’m not cheerleading this war either. You’re absolutely eviscerating a chickenhawk, blowhard, coward of a strawman.
I’m commenting on an effort to weaken popular support for a war of aggression and how it might be tactically reasonable to also challenge the political will. That’s about the extent of what I can contribute: discuss the affair online in an attempt to get insight into the workings of this war. Civilians need to understand the mechanisms so that they can hold the military accountable.
It’s stupidly shortsighted to pretend that talking about it is worthless. Yes, my comment doesn’t help the troops fighting, bleeding and dying to deny an imperialist aggressor’s claim to their land. But the world, present and future, consists of more than that conflict (hopefully, at least). The lessons learned from that war can be valuable to other conflicts, and it is important that civilians also understand the mechanics of it if they are to hold the military accountable.
It’s also plain ignorant to pretend that war is only fought and won in the trenches. Even long before modern communications, it was understood that the will of the enemy is an objective of war. A victory in the trenches does not guarantee an end to the war nor a lasting peace. Attacks on the
enemy’sopponent’s internal stability (not the people, that doesn’t usually work well) help erode that will to continue supporting the war, and also create conditions whereby an eventual peace can bring a noticeable improvement in quality of life that will make the former enemy’s populace more inclined to accept that peace. Yes, it’s not as immediately dangerous and heroic as direct combat, but it amplifies the value of the sacrifice of those who do fight on the ground.And finally, for many people, direct participation on the frontlines isn’t a possibility. Should those people rather do nothing at all than even try to achieve something? Should they stand aside, watch the conscripts die and say “Look at me, being honest about my complacency”? Would their inaction help the defenders?
Do you genuinely believe that ground combat is the only part of war that matters?
Referring to “the enemy” when you’re not fighting makes your desire to appear as part of the war effort obvious.
Why can’t you go fight in this war that you obviously support? Again, people are literally being forced to. Why isn’t a possibility with you, who unlike many of the people forced feels this war should continue?
Seems, like most of the NAFO folks, you’re eager to tell yourself you’re a brave warrior . . . and willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, and not one step further.