this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
5 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32519 readers
497 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion. And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare. Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward. They are just trying to hold on to what they took in those first few months and are very slowly failing at that. If Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose. I do not think Russia will use nukes -- any use of a nuke is basically on Russia's own land -- according to them -- and will affect them as much as Ukraine. But the question of ending the war is an interesting one. Do we see Russia continuing the war if they lose most of their ill-gotten territorial gains? What happens to those insecure areas? Are people going to rebuild, i.e. invest scarce resources in unstable areas? Or will they just become dead zones, DMZ borders?
Are you still of the opinion that Russia is slowly losing its position and is incapable of moving forward?
The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon. IIRC, Ukraine has had a shortage of airplanes to use. Russia has been very reluctant to use the airplanes that they have because they keep getting shot down, and they simply can't replace them at the speed necessary (especially since their economy has crashed, and China is the only country that can supply them with the circuitry that they need).
A bigger problem is that Russia has air defenses and air bases inside Russia. NATO in general has been very reluctant to transfer offensive weapons to Ukraine that would make it possible to strike those--entirely legitimate--targets inside of Russia, because that would be an escalation. But to have air superiority, you need to ensure that those SAM batteries, RADAR installations, and forward air bases are not in the picture. So to break the stalemate, Ukraine has to be able to make strikes against Russia, in Russian territory. That's potentially very dangerous.
If it's allowed to grind on, Russia wins eventually, because they have a population many times the size of Ukraine, and can keep throwing bodies at them. So Ukraine needs to win air superiority, which means striking targets inside of Russia.
Ukraine will run out of material before they reach the Azov sea. You can calculate this yourself based on the verified losses and land gained. In addition manpower isn't infinite for Ukraine.
You are mentioning 2 different resources: 1. Materiel, 2. Manpower. After an initial bumpy start where Ukraine did indeed lose a few valuable pieces of equipment, you cannot point to any significant loses in the last month -- except on the Russian side. And Russia does not have extensive resources thanks to the international sanctions. Russia is now moving troops from one point of attack to another, meaning they no longer have reserves to apply. They have already gone through the prison population, and the lasty conscription drive caused many people to move abroad. They are now conscripting people who have the least motivation to fight and giving them little training. These are death sentences. Meanehile, Ukraine continues to be supported by Western financials and technology. You are perhaps expecting a "blowout" scenario like in Kherkov last year. But placing a greater value on life, Ukraine has been going slow and carefully to minimize losses on thier side. The exact thing you see as a weakness is actually resource protection.
Check it out: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1.
Ukraine doesn't have enough Bradleys and Leapords to reach the sea using current tactics.
how's this analysis working out for ya?
You have a whole entire counteroffensive that shows the exact opposite.
Also
Have you taken a look at a map of the current situation? That's just straight up bullshit
Don't be mean to them, they're manifesting victory and you're harshing the energy.
I know you're being sarcastic but no, they don't deserve being talked to nicely. All these bloodthirsty libs are happy to dance on the graves of thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians because of some vague notion of the west being 'the good guys', gladly ignoring history but being incredibly smug in their ignorance. We provide sources, walls of text to explain where we're coming from, only for them to ignore all the work and effort we put in and go back to their fuckin bubble to complain about how we're 'tankies' and pat each other on the back for being anti-amperialist NATO lovers, lacking either the knowledge or the ideological spine to see the absolute hypocrisy in what they're doing. Or the smug reddit tier comment saying 'I ain't reading all that' because they need spend a fucking minute reading the thoughts of someone better informed than them.
TL;DR?
No
It would take you less that 15 seconds to just read the comment.
I'm pretty sure once Ukraine has thrown away enough lives trying to get to the first line of defense, Russia is going to use their mobilized army to roll up the coast line all the way up to Transnistria.
"thrown away"
A few weeks of NATO training and then sending them into minefields without sufficient artillery support or any air support at all is absolutely, 100%, throwing away lives. Particularly since anybody not huffing their own farts has known from day one that Russia would be able to keep any land they really want, there is no path to victory for Ukraine and there never has been without direct NATO intervention.
I mean marching a bunch of barely-trained 50 year old conscripts into known killzones or over minefields is absolutely throwing those lives away.
And this is based on the overwhelming success of the current Russian attempts?
Gotta have a highly specific definition of "victory" to say something like this
Russia's first failure was being a Fascist state that relies on Nazis for their openly imperialist agenda.
Your biggest failure is being a fascist that doesn't even realize it.
You're a child
Well, let's use the Russian definitions... Did they take Kiev within 3 days? No. Did they hold Kherson? No. Are they able to stop the Ukrainians? No. There has not been any significant ground taken by the Russians in the last few months. Were they able to defend against Ukrainian attacks on the Black Sea? No. After losing their Moskva flagship, they still are suffering attacks on infrastructure, warchips, and bridges. So I am happy to use the limited in context term of victory, while not being so pendantic that it loses meaning.
This was never a goal, as even American military analysts will tell you.
This is outside the separatist regions.
The front has not moved appreciably in almost a year.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/12/analysis-ukraine-rolls-back-6-months-of-russian-gains-in-5-weeks
Less than 100 square miles.
Ah well since you quoted the actual number now the point is moot, good argument! Lol
Yes?