Well… he isn’t wrong. It is indeed completely irrational to fight 17 months, lose hundred thousand+ soldiers, most of your somewhat modern equipment and damage your economy for decades to come while proving to be incapable of even remotely reaching the goals set for just a 3-day-long invasion. And Russia should finally pack up, go home and end this shit show.
And now let’s wait for his brilliant plan to actually get Russia to wake up from their insane fever dream and delusion of grandeur… That is his plan, isn’t it? *cough*
The only person who said 3 days was some random US general, why are y’all using it as some sort of gotcha?
Even if it was hyperbole, which it isn’t, they still tried to blitzkrieg and failed.
Go on, respond then
Given that Russia appears to be winning this conflict, seems that the fever dream and delusions of grandeur are in the west.
You have to move the goalposts further than even Putin has, in order to come up with the conclusion that Russia is winning the conflict.
That’s the conclusion of anybody who’s been paying any attention and has at least a couple of brain cells to bang together. Soon enough this will become obvious even to the most imbecilic members of western public. In the meantime feel free to keep regurgitating the propaganda you’ve been fed for the past two years like a parrot.
As someone who largely agrees with the content of what you have to say, your delivery is absolutely disgusting. You litter every comment with personal attacks, insults, and are needlessly offensive. I genuinely don’t know if you think that aggression helps get your point across, but it doesn’t. And, considering how many of your comments get removed by mods for that insult and disrespect, you should realize that even if you personally think it’s constructive, the mods don’t. If you think the content of your comments is valuable, don’t you think it’d have more value if it is left up for others to see, instead of having it removed where nobody can learn from it? If you resort to this namecalling and aggression so much, and the comments get removed, they’re of no value. As an outside observer, by reading your comments, I’m less likely to trust what you have to say, and instead would assume you have a set agenda that you won’t stray from. Your behavior detracts from your trustworthiness.
I appreciate the sentiment, and for what it’s worth, you’ll never find me making personal attacks or insults to people who engage with me in polite discussion. I realize I could do better engaging with trolls, but I find it difficult not to respond in kind. None of us are perfect, all we can do is try to be better.
I’ll just summarize my point: if you think you have educational value in your comments, that value is nil if the comment gets removed.
Edit
I get your point perfectly fine. The reality is that we’re all human, and we react to provocations. That’s why trolling works and why trolls do it. We all react in ways we wish we didn’t because it’s not easy to change your own negative behavior even when you’re aware of it. All I can do is try to interact with people better.
Are they? It’s difficult for me to tell given I have a language barrier and the vast majority of English-language information is obviously supportive of Ukraine. From what I have understood, it seems that Russia has gained a modest amount of land at significant cost in terms of human lives and internal political stability.
But I am also unsure how much I hear about the civil discontent is reflective of the actual Russian situation, beyond average pacifist sentiment. “Their society is in turmoil!” sorts of stories have been used in past conflicts to keep up public support for wars by making it sound like victory is around the corner.
Discriminating signal from noise in war media requires really active constant effort that I just can’t maintain long term when there are so many conflicts. As much as I want to. I also think the whole thing has been lose-lose for people and the environment, but that’s another topic altogether.
There is actually a lot of information you can read in English language media, but most of it doesn’t make its way into mainstream reporting. However, actual military experts and political scientists give us a pretty good insight into what’s really happening. For example, this analysis from U.S. Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin retired after 20 years of service and 12 years working as a modeling and simulations officer in NATO explains that Russian strategy is not about taking territory. Russia is fighting a war of attrition with NATO. The reality is that Russia inherited a massive military industrial complex from USSR, and it is currently able to outproduce NATO militarily. Furthermore, Russia has a much simpler logistics situation in terms of shipping weapons and supplies to the battlefront. Finally, Russia enjoys air superiority over Ukraine and is able to attack deep within Ukraine to destroy supplies and infrastructure. Ukraine has no meaningful ability to do the same within Russia. Furthermore, this is primarily an artillery war and Russia enjoys a huge artillery advantage over Ukraine. This summary of the state of things John Mearsheimer is a very lucid explanation of where the war is at.
Another huge problem for Ukraine is that it’s entirely reliant on western support at this point both militarily and economically. This means that Ukraine has to continue showing results to the west in order to keep support going. This is how Ukraine got pushed into the current disastrous offensive they’re forced to conduct. Russians clearly expected this given that they spent the past 9 months preparing complex multilayered defences that Ukrainian military is throwing itself against as we speak.
Once this offensive burns out, Ukraine will have spent a significant amount of weapons they received from the west, and lost large numbers of their experienced soldiers. This is already happening and it’s being admitted in mainstream western media fairly openly at this point. Russia is already starting a counterattack of their own in the north, and they’ve taken more territory in the past couple of weeks than Ukraine has taken in two months of their offensive. Russia is increasingly fighting against a depleted and demoralized army. All of this was known before the war started, Obama even quipped this in 2016:
Regarding political stability, it’s pretty clear that it’s much higher in Russia than pretty much in any western country. The government is consistently polling between 75% and 80%, and most dissidents have fled at the start of the conflict. We also saw evidence of this when Prigozhin’s attempt at a coup happened. All of the government and military immediately pledged loyalty and denounced Prigozhin. I can guarantee you that anybody who appeared to even remotely support the coup has been rooted out at this point. On the other hand, there is significant political instability in Europe, and anti war parties are polling increasingly high.
The reality is that that people care about their economic situation first and foremost. The economy in Russia is doing well, and even IMF is projecting growth. The war has little impact on day to day life in Russia. On the other hand, Europe is now in recession and people are seeing their economic conditions decline. This is the primary driver of political unrest. I expect we’ll see anti war sentiment to continue growing going forward. I recall seeing that Czech president Petr Pavel say that he expects that Ukraine only has around 6 months left, at which point there’s likely going to be collapse of public support in the west. Once western support stops, Ukraine will have no way to continue fighting the war and will have to accept Russian terms. Russia understands this perfectly well, and this is why they’re conserving their resources and fighting a war of attrition instead of making big and costly offensives to take territory. If Russia can grind down Ukrainian army then they can dictate terms.
Thanks, this seems like a sensible analysis that also accords with my knowledge of the situation prior to the current fighting. The conclusions drawn reflect the outcomes we have seen from other recent internationally-backed conflicts, which makes sense.
As always, the losers are the people who live inside the actual disputed territory, regardless of their background or political affiliations. It won’t be Putin’s or Zelenskyy’s children who step on the landmines long after the shooting stops. No matter how many countries say they commit to remove them.
I think the reality is that the actual conflict is between Russia and NATO with Ukraine simply being used as a proxy. This is a tragedy for the people of Ukraine as they ended up being cynically used by the west in a misguided attempt to weaken Russia. And I’m not exaggerating here, it’s literally the words of Loyd Austin and what a RAND paper that was published before the war suggested. Russia obviously played the role of the aggressor here and bears full responsibility for that, but the war would not have happened if not for NATO ambition to keep expanding east.
What’s truly tragic is that plenty of western experts have been warning about this for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started.
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Only in your dreams.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Say the line yogthos!
.
Oh look, it’s yogthos!
You’re a funny guy I love seeing your comments
Hey Andres, if the USA would invade and annex the Yucatán Peninsula (Cancún) how would you feel if some country on the other side of the world ask you to stop the fight and just talk to the USA? … yeah, right.
Yucatán doesn’t have Americans living in it.
In fact America did invade and annex parts of Mexico. Why do you think half of California has Spanish names?
Oh man, wait till you find out what US has done to Mexico.
Whataboutism, one of the core tools of a Russian propaganda bot.
Russian propaganda bot.
Oh he’s not a bot. They are a real verified human doing this as a labor of love.
He might be made of flesh, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t programned.
Whataboutism is the correct response to hypocrites.
Argument from fallacy, one of the core tools of a Redditor.
That’s not an argument from fallacy, they aren’t claiming they’re wrong.
Oh man wait until you hear about China starting a territory dispute with India, Japan, the Philippines, and building artificial islands to try and claim more territory!
What dumb fucking country tries to start a land war with THE ONE OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITH A COMPARABLE POPULATION?
Uh, yeah, the thing about that? Russia wants concessions Ukraine will not give. It would also embolden the Duma and quite frankly they deserve all the L’s they can get.
How do you think this all ends exactly?
Please enlighten us.
consider yourself enlightened https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-darkness-ahead-where-the-ukraine
NATO’s role is complex, but blaming it solely for Russia’s actions oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Don’t ignore Russia’s own choices and aggression.
Except, nobody is solely blaming NATO for Russia’s actions.
That is of course the excuse Putin wants everyone to swallow, but no matter how bad NATO has been and how that whole paradigm probably should be reimagined, one cannot ignore the decades of reporting, first hand accounts and witnesses of what’s going on in the various oblasts and republics of Russia, and I’m not just talking about Siberia.
It’s this idea that all westerners are stupid and disconnected enough to not know, but we have ex-pat Russians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Moldovans, Polish, etc, etc.
This was never about NATO. That is a scapegoat. It is the resurgence of Russian emperialism, the classic KGB subversion and purile egomanic vanity. If they wanted Ukraine away from NATO, they could’ve instead relied on soft diplomacy and probably even have gotten there. This was as all about taking sovereign territory from another nation state for strategic purposes, by any means necessary.
Now consider Ukrainians, knowing all this, because again, they are not stupid neither, would they just lay down knowing fully well what will happen to their country?
Mf, they stay in this - for the survival of their culture and history, because cultural genocide will be just the first in a long line of atrocities that lie in wait if they should lose.
I put my chips on the Ukrainians, even that they become one of these perpetual conflict countries. But hopefully not. Hopefully they’ll take back the east and also Crimea and maybe even shake up the power dynamics in Russia for the better.
Why would you lie about something that’s extremely well documented. Countless western experts have said this for decades. Claiming that this is some sort of an excuse made up by Putin is the height of intellectual dishonesty. Saying this was never about NATO is demonstrably bullshit. And they tried soft diplomacy for literally 8 years during which Ukraine and its western sponsors were supposed to implement Minsk. We now have plain admissions that this was never the plan from the west.
The best thing that can happen to Ukraine at this point is that it loses a bunch more territory and becomes a rump state that will be forced to accept Russian demands which will be far worse than those Ukraine could’ve accepted before the war. The worst case for Ukraine is that it could cease to exist as a state. Anybody who thinks that Ukraine can win this was is living in an alternate reality.
Then push Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and pay reparations for the damage they’ve done. The only thing irrational about this war is that Russia started it and keeps acting like it’s justified.
YEah I don’t care but diplomacy would be nice. You can’t sell me a war.
Given Angela Merkel said outloud that minsk negotiations were a delaying tactic, what incentive is there to negotiate?
A ceasefire would be great. Which is why you don’t use negotiations cynically.
Remeber, this idiot side is with the russians.
Looks like you pissed off a bunch of tankies lmao
I agree, but that doesn’t change the fact that the mexican president is in cahoots with the russian government.
deleted by creator
I feel like that’s a decision for the Ukrainian people. Our wants don’t enter into it.
deleted by creator
It has definitely shifted more towards NATO now.
deleted by creator
Which demographic are you asking about?
Let’s attack russia
Let’s end human civilization in a nuclear holocaust.
Removed by mod
He’s so proud to have a Russian passport to play tankie on the internet, but too cowardly to go to the front himself
Removed by mod
Better just give everything to Russia then!
Obviously you must think that it’s better to make sure hundreds of thousands of people die and millions more have their lives ruined before giving everything to Russia. If Ukraine simply accepted neutrality before the war and implemented Minsk, then it would’ve kept all its territory. Then Ukraine could’ve settled the war back in March last year, but US and UK said no. Now, Ukraine has lost 20% of its territory, and will likely lose a lot more. Yet, the final outcome is going to be the same. Even western propagandists stopped talking about Ukrainian victory at this point.
And imagine being the kind of absolute psycho who thinks that it’s better for billions of people to die in a nuclear holocaust than for Russia to win in Ukraine. These are the kinds of psychopaths we have here.
deleted by creator
That’s a fallacious argument based on a false premise. Russia has always been clear that their concern has been NATO expansion. Ukraine would have lost none of its territory had it chose to remain neutral.
Furthermore, plenty of western experts warned about this literally for decades, yet those concerns were ignored.
Meanwhile, it’s kind of funny of you to talk about setting some sort of precedent when the west has set it a long time ago.
Western nations have invaded Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria just to name a few. This was done unilaterally without UN authorization. In fact, Russian playbook in Ukraine is directly modeled on what NATO did in Yugoslavia where they recognized breakaway regions and had them invite NATO for support.
What you’re essentially saying here is that it’s fine for the west to do these things, but we should bring the world to a brink of a nuclear holocaust when other countries do the same.
The reality is that the west has no moral high ground here unless western countries change their own behavior.
deleted by creator
Perhaps it’s not so fallacious as you claim. Putin himself wrote a lengthy article (http://en.kremlin.ru/misc/66182) which was basically his version of Anschluß that Hitler used as reasoning for taking Austria in 1938. And Russian leaders have written a lot about how they would like to reverse the dismantling of USSR at least when it comes to territory – but since those nations are now sovereign that would amount to annexing those countries.
That article doesn’t say what you seem to be claiming here.
I was talking about the precedent of using nuclear weapons to back offensive actions. USA did something like that during Korea in the 50s, but to my knowledge not since. Well ok, there was Trump, but who knows how serious that was.
And as you yourself admit the precedent is set by US which is the only country to actually commit such an atrocity. However, the bigger point here whether might makes right, and that’s the rule that the west has consistently followed.
Didn’t Ukraine remain neutral about NATO until Russia took Crimea? Only after that they reconsidered that position.
No, Ukraine had a violent coup in 2014 where the legitimate government was overthrown and right wing nationalists took power. Russia annexed Crimea in response to that because the regime that took power started doing these sorts of things to the Russian speaking population:
The Budapest Memorandums disprove your argument. Long before Russian invaded Crimea, much less Ukraine main, a peace plan with a promise to never invade was given by Russia. Russia lied.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/science/ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html
I see you just conveniently omitted the whole 2014 coup when the legitimate government was overthrown in Ukraine and the regime that the west put in power started doing these sort of things to the Russian speaking population
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
- https://twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
The only one who’s lying here is you bud.
Who let the Orcs in? There’s something obvious here, but it’s not Russian victory.
Just say what you mean, “asiatic hordes”
Christ the open racism that the reddit migration has brought in is disgusting.
Hey look it’s the echo account. I mean war pigs, familiar?
Are you having a stroke or trying to talk in code? I just read some other text so I know I’m not having a stroke.
Removed by mod
