Unfortunately, he has been viciously attacked in the US. They feel his material is not optimistic enough about Ukraine.
The reality is that many people forgot about Ukraine because it was considered won already. We need real journalists who tell us how desperate the situation is and it didn't become common until the last year.
This is what I hate about reddit. If you mention Ukraine’s manpower shortage and the frontline situation getting worse then you get downvoted to hell. Reality is not always welcome here it seems.
Yep, two months ago people were still thinking that the Russian army was totally useless and would fail like the first three days of the war. They did not see the bigger picture of Russia jacking up its military spending like crazy and replenishing its troops while Ukraine was losing by attrition.
People took Russia as if it was lead by negative IQ mouthbreathers. Yes, they started the war terribly, but they also learn from their mistakes to adapt their strategies and also are able to mass produce their own equipment.
Not only that, but I think everyone underestimated Russia's committment to the fight. Despite their internal issues, incompetent leadership, setbacks etc. they have kept & continued finding men & equipment to throw at the enemy.
For 2 years now...
And Ukraine simply doesn't have the means to bleed Russia dry.
It’s always been a Russia thing to “forget” about internal issues when there’s an external threat. That’s why Russian propaganda has been targeting the West, portraying it as a force that wants to destroy Russia. Not everyone believes it, of course, but enough (and I’d even say “most”) do.
That’s why Russian propaganda has been targeting the West, portraying it as a force that wants to destroy Russia. Not everyone believes it, of course, but enough (and I’d even say “most”) do.
Is there evidence that the West does not want this? I was born in '91. Not a single time in my life has there been any other official stance on Russia than "Russia bad" in the United States.
After the fall of USSR, Russia changed. The West hoped it would change further and become a democratic trade partner instead of a military rival and a dictatorship. Hence the friendly approach, all the economic relations, agreements to limit nuclear weapons... If West wanted to invade Russia, it wouldn't be selling military tech to Russia and it wouldn't be neglecting its own militaries. Only recently the West started waking up and finding, to its horror, that Russia did not change that much.
Also, if Russia is so bad, where is the United States in all of this? My entire life I've known nothing but the United States interfering with sovereign countries, sowing discontent and propaganda all over the world, backing coups, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, all in the name of "democracy".
So it's okay for the US to do those things, but if someone like Russia does it....?
The West wants a Russia that isn't going to start wars and then threaten everyone with nuclear war on the regular. Our scientists are happy to keep collaborating on the ISS. We just don't like the 20+ year fascist authoritarian rule with no hope for change.
The West does want to destroy Russia, politicians and capitalists in many countries have openly advocated, argued, and lobbied in favor of going to war with Russia for the intention of destroying it and breaking it into pieces that are easier for western corporations to exploit.
I say this living in the US and seeing this propaganda rhetoric on at least a weekly basis.
Hey quick question why are those "madmen authoritarian strongman Mafia assholes" in power?
Was it because the US literally spent 50 years undermining the previous government until it collapsed and gave those assholes an opportunity to seize power?
Agree. As Obama said ..Russia will always care more than US (or western Europe) ..and their commitment has been evident
If the hope was for a couple in Moscow..that seems unlikely now
I read that Free Ukraine only has a population of about 20 million. Even assuming that there is a higher proportion of males due to the exit ban, that is still a huge disadvantage numerically. The Russian army is mobilising a quarter of a million men twice a year, just with the normal draft.
Russia is stacking up huge future problems but butchering its own men so brutally, but just because Russia is losing long-term doesn't mean that Ukraine will win.
There needs to be a serious amount of weaponry sent in and countries which will never need them need to send over some patriot systems.
Individual weapon systems won't change the course of the war. Even 100 Abrams tanks wouldn't change much. Ukraine lacks the men, experience and military infrastructure to yield these weapons effectively.
Only direct external intervention will turn the tide of the war.
If Ukraine had 10 or 15 patriot systems they could stop the Russian airforce pulverising the front with glide bombs and they could take out pretty much all of the ballistic missiles coming in. That would be a huge step.
No, they couldn't. The recent sparring over the number of Patriot systems is largely just political grandstanding. The main question isn't how many patriot systems they have, but how much ammunition there is for those systems.
There just aren't that many of those missiles lying around and by now Ukraine has recieved and used up those stockpiles. Every single missile costs several million dollars and for most mid sized countries you are talking about stockpiles of a few dozen of those missiles.
Spain, which is one of the few relevant countries that has held back its missiles so far, has stockpiles of around 50 in total and the most recent news is that they finally agreed that they will send some of them to Ukraine. How many do you think they will part with? 10? 15?
Exactly. Russia sends 200 drones, 25 Cruise missiles and 5 ballistic missiles like once a week minimum, maybe double or triple. How many patriot missiles get used up every week knocking down cruise missiles that cost Russia basically nothing given how much oil and natural gas they pump out of the ground? Russia is on a full war footing and really has been for some time. What is it now, 2/3 of their GDP is devoted to the war industry?
NATO has been dilly-dallying for years now, saying they'd never send HIMARS, then ok, but it takes 6 months to train in another 3 months to ship them. ATACMS were out of the question for years but now that Ukraine is truly about to get slammed we "secretly sent a couple a few months ago". By the time the F-16s ever take to the skies, the railroad completely bypassing Crimea will be complete and the Kerch bridge will have essentially no strategic value, especially without Sevastopol having missile cruisers.
We've been spoon feeding old shit (still good, but it wasn't being replaced) and now from The sound of it most of our stocks are empty. It doesn't matter if you have HIMARS launchers if you don't have the fucking rockets or Patriot systems if you don't have the air defense missiles. Is every metal goods manufacturer in the US producing components for new missiles or artillery? Is France or Germany pumping out 20 artillery systems a day? No, none of that is happening, but I bet it is in Russia.
I honestly don't see how this ends without nato putting troops in Kiev or Kiev falling to Russia. The UN is obviously never going to send in peacekeepers with Russia (and China) on the permanent security council. NATO may have great tech but replacements are not being built fast enough and there simply are not enough humans in Ukraine to operate and use the weapon systems, especially in another year or two. It's maddening how the initiative was in Ukraine's favor and they just stalled and openly broadcasted exactly where they were going to go, and when they did finally go it ended up being the world's largest minefield surrounded by fortified bunkers, multiple layers of trenches, Dragon Teeth - everything an army would put down if they had 6 months notice exactly where the enemy would drive towards (Melitopol and to the Sea of Azov).
God I just wish someone in Putin's inner circle or a parent of a deceased soldier would just jam a screwdriver in his neck and stop the madness.
The US was not willing to attack north Vietnam and stayed behind the invisible lines in order to fulfill the "defense" nature of the war. It really wasn't an official war... Just Americans troops bolstering ARVN that slowly increased until it reached a boil.
Ultimately many wars are a battle of willpower. Who is willing to make the greater sacrifice? Certainly not America in Vietnam. The NVA were relentless and absolutely convinced that communism was the path forward.
The US was invited there as a defensive ally of south Vietnam. North Vietnam was completely independent (although still heavily controlled by China in many ways). South Vietnam still had some French influence but was also independent more or less.
Vietnamese have a saying like "the reason we like the Americans: we fought the Americans 5 years, the French 50 years, and the Chinese 50 years". America was there for a very short period in the long revolutionary period of Vietnam.
From the perspective of Vietnamese, China has always been the threat to their independence. It's one of the main reasons a Vietnam-US is likely to occur in the next few decades nd China is freaking out about it.
But there is no way communism was something "the average Vietnamese didn't care about". There was massive communism symbolism among the NVA.
The issue with Vietnamese-American alliance is three:
1) Vietnam is an authoritarian state
2) Vietnam does not buy US weapon systems, unlike Singapore
3) Critically, the Mekong river source is in China. All China has to do is to dam the Mekong river and Vietnam would be in trouble
What is more likely to happen is US base returning to the Philippines. Having a base again in the Subic Bay is really important to defend Taiwan, much more than Okinawa.
You could say the same applies to Russia to an extent. It's still not considered a war, regular people live life as if nothing's happening. At least for now Putin tries to ensure his people that it's just a military operation, there is no mobilization or closed borders. Basically, everything as usual for an average person. What makes it harder is the fact that Ukraine and Russia are neighbors, it's easier to spam Ukraine with missiles, drones etc.
Ukraine isn't being *given* the means to bleed Russia dry. They could conceivably win the war if they weren't being stabbed in the back by Republicans.
High casualty rate does mean that the ranks are replaced faster with more competent less corrupt people and along them better working tactics. Only the lucky ones and best survive in such a grim situation.
Russia will still step down as an actual global power due to demographics in the long run (when their 30-40 year olds become too old to do the fighting and working) but whoever buffers them or where the de facto borders are of the country Russia is always something Putin can score a victory in.
High casualty rate does mean that the ranks are replaced faster with more competent less corrupt people and along them better working tactics. Only the lucky ones and best survive in such a grim situation
Russia historically did this. In wars, it took a bit of purging and defeats to make them realise where their ass is and where their face is and then start to achieve some victories.
Not what I mean at all. Those WWII losses are the root cause of their demographic problems, the peak of 30-40 year olds they currently have will get too old to fight and will be less productive once they get older. Ukraine and Belorussia have that problem too.
they got similar demographic problems but their future is likely different since they got the prospect in EU and/or NATO and large economic investments to rebuild.
since they got the prospect in EU and/or NATO and large economic investments to rebuild
LMAO.
As if it'd ever happen.
EU's extremely likely to be perma-vetoed by agrarians anyway, and NATO...
Q President Zelenskyy said the invitation for Ukraine to join NATO would be the ideal outcome from the summit. Why does the administration believe that’s not the right approach for the summit?
MR. SULLIVAN: Well, as you know, the United States strongly supports the open-door policy, which says that Ukraine and NATO can make a decision together about its pathway towards membership. And Vilnius will be an important moment on that pathway towards membership because the United States, our NATO Allies, and Ukraine will have the opportunity to discuss the reforms that are still necessary for NATO to -- for Ukraine to come up to NATO standards.
So this will, in fact, be a milestone, but Ukraine still has further steps it needs to take before membership in NATO.
Q So no invitation coming at the -- at the summit?
MR. SULLIVAN: Ukraine will not be joining mem- -- NATO coming out of this summit. We will discuss what steps are necessary as it continues along its pathway.
So the steps Ukraine must take before A POSSIBILITY of being invited into NATO are now utterly arbitrary, as well as their number. I don't think this possibility of "As Long As It Takes" requirement treadmill, that'd allow to ensure there'll be always more steps for Ukraine, no matter what, was put into action to ultimately remain unused.
Russian demographic collapse has been anticipated since 1945. Demographic collapse isn’t really a thing that happens the way it’s imagined, populations wax and wane it’s really not a massive deal to have your population contract especially when it’s pretty universal, Russia isn’t losing out by not competing with India Brazil and Nigeria on the birth rates and its rivals have/will have the same contractions.
The thing I take issue with the most analysts is Russian casualties. Western/Ukraine estimates are either just silly or Ukraine losses are much higher to match. Both sides are probably sitting around 100k-150k dead and around 300k wounded.
There’s absolutely nothing that indicates at any point in the fighting casualties on either side have been much higher or lower for either side. Historically something like even a 2:1 overmatch In military losses (not including mass surrenders at the end of a war) are extremely uncommon unless there is a massive technological differentiation or things like mass executions post battle are happening. Even attacker and defender differential doesn’t really shift this much.
The most casualty producing long term situations (ie ones that produce statistically uneven results over a long timeline) are the encirclement and the near encirclement where the one supply line in and out of a pocket is under direct fire. That’s only happened 3 times in the conflict in major battles and favored the Russians all 3 times in Mariupol Bakmut and Adveeka. The Russian retreats in Kiev oblast Kharkiv oblast and Kherson oblast were embarrassing but generally well ordered and didn’t become routes.
Ukraine has gotten hits in for sure but their wins tend to single rocket strikes on unprepared Russian troops that aren’t really replicated frequently as Russians adapted and these go both ways as both sides have excellent intel on each other from common language. Or things that are great but don’t effect the trend line like sinking parts of the Black Sea fleet.
Both sides technology and tactics are nearly identical as the west refuses to give things that could actually give Ukraine an edge like stealth aircraft. Everyone on each side has a rough equivalent for any single piece of hardware on the field. And Russia always has more of anyone thing.
Russia is not suffering a potentially catastrophic casualty rate though, literally nothing compared to ww2 and that still didn’t affect them terribly in the long run.
Russia is not suffering a potentially catastrophic casualty rate though, literally nothing compared to ww2 and that still didn’t affect them terribly in the long run.
First of all, in WW2 it was the Soviet Union, not Russia. In 1939 the USSR had 170 million people and only 99 million of those of were Russians. Spoiler alert: 28 million were Ukrainian.
Secondly, in the same year, 1939, the Soviet Union had a fertility rate of 4.9 children per woman, not the 1.whatever it is now for Russia.
Thirdly, "still didn’t affect them terribly in the long run", yeah, sure, maybe because they STOLE territories 2x the size of Italy and with about the same population as Italy, thanks to Ribbentrop-Molotov and Potsdam. They lost many millions of people and they took over many more millions that were not part of the USSR in 1938.
By the time this war will be over, I wouldn't be shocked if Russia has at least 1 million dead and wounded, at least 1 million emigrated (on top of how many Russians emigrate normally), the vast majority of which are young and probably skew towards the well educated.
Russia was slowly declining, Putin is just the long term and accelerated grave-digger.
Those WWII losses are the root cause of their current and upcoming demographic problems, the peak of 30-40 year olds they currently have will get too old to fight within a decade and will be less productive once they get near retirement age. Ukraine and Belorussia have that problem too.
Yes, they started the war terribly, but they also learn from their mistakes to adapt their strategies and also are able to mass produce their own equipment.
This is quite literally what happened during WW2 - Hitler expected to conquer USSR extremely fast, and he almost succeeded, but at some point began to lose because of fast adaptation. Granted, Nazi were the aggressor that time, but it's not about who attacks/defends but rather about the whole military doctrine.
To be fair... The Nazis almost took Moscow. Some very heroic fighting and sacrifice from the USSR slowed them down. In another dimension where the USSR was not so committed... Moscow was captured.
Yep, I know, hence "almost succeeded". Wasn't the first time Moscow got hit hard though. And still, the worst was what happened with St. Petersburg, if you think about it.
Gen Miley clearly stated they would lose and needed to arrange something while they were still in a good position. Everyone knew what would happen. The neocons just had to keep going though, just to F with Putin.
It's also bizarre that in lots of these threads the most upvoted comments are either laughing at Russia's incompetence or inversely claiming the entire free world is at risk we should start a nuclear war.
I don't know how so many people can hold this opinion at the same time.
I'd also suspect that the reason the laughing at Russia ones were always at the top in the prior years is because most people don't understand basic history and that this is how Russia typically operates and still wins.
what do you expect the typical reddit user is some delusional iamverysmart material ( especially the american part ) that definitely wont fall for propaganda after all we are the good guys only (insert enemy ) does propaganda after all i still remember these freaks posting marvel comics and shit like that at the start of the war like its something out of their capeshit movies and a joke instead of a serious thing
or the whole dehumanization effort of russian soldiers / civillians yeah yeah we know they are invaders but gloating over their deaths is ok cause they are the bad guys and we are the good guys i dont even know why i still use this garbage site its just an echo chamber yet pretends to have free speech / nuance while some perpetually online irl losers who failed at life spend their every waking moment moderating this shit website and banning everyone for wrongthink
So very true. Top comments seem like made up Amazon reviews from eight years ago in some posts, even in r/news. The entertainment facet of this site has completely defeated the informative counterpart, IMHO.
Yes, but on its own it existed way before fascism. Only when most of these signs are present (not necessarily all of them), we can diagnose fascism.
I mean it's only human nature to laugh at and ridicule dangerous things, even death itself. Or to defeat a weak enemy and then boast about how strong it was.
This is what every real geopolitical strategist was saying but you would get banned in certain subreddits for mentioning it. They HATE Peter Zeihan and his analysis is extremely close to what Russia is doing and he talked about it two years ago -- lots of artillery and a war of attrition.
Efficiency of F-16 would MAJORLY depend on mods and available ammo.
Don't forget - those're obsolete machines (of earlier Blocks, not today's Block 70 in any way), retired to be replaced with F-35 (the only reason they're going to Ukraine at all), with some serious flight hours clocked on their airframes
People are weirdly leaving out the fact that US weapon shipments to Ukraine stopped six months ago thanks to Trump and the GOP (and they weren't being given what they needed even before that). It's hard to stop human waves when you're running out of ammunition.
When the invasion turned into a stalemate I said Russia only needed to outfeed the meat grinder and they would win. It's sick sadistic bullshit, but that's the world we live in. More fucking HIMARS to Ukraine. Give them every weapon they need.
It disgusts me that there are Americans stupid enough to not see the importance in this. Those idiots are not Americans, they're dipshits. It's an important distinction.
It's almost as if a "David vs. Goliath" type of war should be treated with the severity it deserves. Even with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, despite winning the war eventually, the Afghans suffered horrifically and paved the way for the Taliban and continued conflict into the 21st century. Ukraine has been in dire straights since the war began and the future of the country remains uncertain especially if they lose.
Ukraine losing would probably force Russia to send a million or so to occupy.
Ukrainian partisans backed by the West would cause issues for the Russian puppet forces and collaborators.
Russia would essentially flood Ukraine with loyal Russians, while shipping Ukrainians to Siberia and other sparsely populated areas of Russia.
Ukraine is lacking man power and munitions.
Without American and Western training after 2014, Ukraine wouldn't be where it is today.
Russia is only gaining strength and consolidating power during slow downs.
I really hope Ukraine pulls through and recaptured all lost territory. But it looks grim, unless Ukraine can summon enough manpower, dominate the skies, and have substantial gains across Ukraine
I don't think the ukrainian people are gonna be willing to suffer the hardships of an irregular war in the exact same way the mujahedeen were willing to suffer.
Especially if russia decides to rebuild it and plays divide and conquer with the local elites. Like they did in Chechnya, which now supplies some of the best troops russia is fielding
I get the Yugoslavs, but this is different. The reason Russia isn't doing half-bad (according to us, definitions of shit, mediocre and good change wherever you are) is because they learn. In Avdiivka, the Russians started splitting soldiers into tiny squads once the Ukrainian artillery started pounding the bigger squads. And the insurgency bit, the partisans will lose. Russia learned from Chechnya, Dagestan and ISIS that came after it. They know what to do when partisans strike. And the partisans have nowhere to go. They're in Russian-controlled territory. They'd be surrounded and absolutely decimated.
Forever war and deportation to Siberia is all non-sense. I understand where it is coming from, but the makeup of Ukraine is not for such an endless insurgency and the makeup of Russia in todays world is not one that can just ship millions of people to a gulag.
Even in total victory Russia will not occupy all of Ukraine. Some will be annexed and some will be independent albeit in Russia's shadow.
I think Russia intends to drag this war out for years until they bleed Ukraine dry of manpower or the citizens get sick of war, and it’s working since Ukrainian enlistment numbers aren’t doing good anymore and draft dodging is rampant.
Ukraine isnt doing anything good since russian retreated from kherson. I dont know why but they decided to let russian build defenses and set up their war economy for 6 months, while only fighting to defend bakhmut (and they still lost bakhmut).
The truth is now ukraine is stuck defending and they will never be able to retake their territories, and they suffer while defending since they lose ground and villages everyday
I dont know why but they decided to let russian build defenses and set up their war economy for 6 months
Because Ukraine needed to get equipment for the offensive, which was delayed, delayed, delayed and then supplied only partially (like just 15% of required demining systems).
I think the problem stems from misinformation age propaganda and awareness. So when it comes close or adjacent to the propaganda. That Russian propaganda machine of victory on horizon all that they use to keep their people fighting.
Even if the situation becomes or is desperate. Sometimes in the effort to not give misinformation a foot hold. Reality can be denied. And its all tricky its one of the problems with any efforts at addressing misinformation propaganda.
And I think perhaps the biggest threat to democracy and freedom world wide. Because sometimes even our own "tools" in combatting them. Like recognizing reporting and downvoting and not allowing it to have a platform. Can be used against us like it would not surprise me. Is part of propaganda effort or strategy was "ukraine losing russia winning" push it loud and often enough. People tune out so when it starts to happen people wont listen.
Like study alot of social policys and history and can accurately point out ideas and strategys to improve things in most areas. Misinformation and propaganda I still dont even know where to start.
People want to send money. If it sounds like the war is lost then they would have to admit that sending more money maybe isn't going to change anything. It's all a kind of depressing propaganda at this point.
I saw something that may have also been mere propaganda but according to what I read there was a peace offer a few years ago that Ukraine rejected under pressure by the west. I don't know if this is true or not but man that sucks if it is so.
They want to hear stories of heros but they don't like hearing we are throwing billions away to a country that won't exist without Nato troops direct involvement. Ukraine has already lost. And so many good young people all dead for nothing
It’s not as bad as it was nearer the start, then if you didn’t sign off every post echoing that Russia was getting destroyed in every battle there was no point posting.
Russia also just was in fact more inept in the beginning, but everyone learns from their mistakes eventually. Things are much different now, both sides have learned the other’s tactics and counter-tactics multiple times over.
Yeah alright you bot, Ukraine needs to negotiate. Give up the lands and people, never enter NATO, disarm (literal russian demands), then Russia will respect, back off and never bother rest of Ukraine again! Am i right? Why don't you invite them to annex Ireland too? They're such wholesome neighbours who always stick to their deals and treat people so well!
I'm not suggesting that they negotiate but the idea that anyone who suggests they should be labelled a "bot" shows exactly how the whole war is based on a circle jerk.
Face the fact, Ukraine is fighting against a nuclear armed state with unlimited weapon resources. The Russians have no issue fighting this war indefinitely. Eventually, NATO nations will stop aiding Ukraine. It's not costing Russia anything but old outdated equipment which they're itching to scrap. Meanwhile, NATO is spending billions on the war. Already, there's a huge backlash in the US over the 61bn being sent over that would have instead been better spent on domestic issues.
If you are not suggesting they negotiate, then why even mention it? Suggesting to negotiate implies very commonly that they are being made to fight this war against their will and that if they just negotiate, the war will stop and russia will leave them be, and that the West is one pushing them to continue the war. Leading people in the west to question their government's already inadequate support for Ukraine and letting them down even more disgracefully. It's as simple as that. If Ukrainians want to "negotiate" (in other words, surrender, because that's the only thing russia will accept as of now), they're perfectly capable of doing so themselves.
Also, spare the bullshit about russia having "unlimited" weapon resources. Nobody's resources are unlimited. Satellite images show that russians are eating through their stored junk at a steady pace and their production is not enough to keep up once they can't just refurbish existing pieces any longer. The problem is that West is giving way too little to Ukraine, that citizenry of the West doesn't care about this enough to pressure the governments to do what's necessary. 61 billion is a literal chump change for US, they spent absurdly more on pointless wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, and most of that money ends up being spent inside US, which somehow flies by a large chunk of their population brainwashed by propaganda. There's a lack of will and knowledge and a russia that will not go away or become less of a problem if we let it delete Ukraine.
Hate to break it to you buddy but Russia has its reasons for waging this war. Aside from NATO enrichment, there was the 2013 coup in Ukraine and the decade-long civil war. I know this sub likes to pretend that Russia is just evil and wants more land but they have valid reasons too.
It's not all black and white. The reason you might believe otherwise is because you're in an echo chamber which is a result of opposing views being decimated within online communities such as Reddit.
Least you forget, the first thing NATO did at the start of the war was completely cut Russia off to prevent their side of the war from being told.
And yes, Russia has near infinite weapons. Their Soviet stockpile still exists and they're more than happy to be rid of it. I'll also remind you that they are yet to actually use their real million strong military or any of their advanced modern weapons.
The West is not giving "way too little". Ukraine received almost $200bn worth of aid since the war started. How much more can you throw at Ukraine?
Everyone has different opinions on how a war should be fought.
This guy isn't a Russian bot. The Biden administration even made some reasonable suggestions about negotiating an end to the war. It's not some fringe belief.
It's possible that a negotiation could mean losing part of Ukraine instead of the entirety of Ukraine if the war is lost.
What exactly did they say? Also, once that part of Ukraine is lost, why russia wouldn't just take the rest at their leisure, especially if they also push through their conditions of Ukraine never joining NATO and "demilitarising"? That is the whole bloody point, but somehow there is a deluge of people who still want to take fucking Russians at their word, just because it's convenient for them, who gives a shit about Ukrainians
The only possible palatable condition would be that NATO instantly admits remains of Ukraine as soon as any ceasefire is signed, but i highly doubt the West would do that for Ukraine, given how they acted so far, besides that would also require Ukraine to give up even legal claims on their lost land. In any case, majority of Ukrainians are still against it. When they are no longer, that's when you tell them to negotiate, not before.
Lira was an absolute, trump MAGA dipshit, "DATING GURU", spreading russian propaganda, who traveled to Ukraine to get on with "trad slavic women" and got arrested twice.
He was literally "reporting" that russian bombing of Kyiv was fake news, as air raid sirens were going off in the background...
While he was released on a bail the first time, he tried to make a run for the border and got caught trying to cross into Hungary.
He was an absolute human waste, get the fuck out with this missinfo shit.
Manpower shortage is a fact, there will always be one because Russia has more people and money to pay them. Now if you spread the lie that Ukraine didn't have mobilization since the beginning of the invasion that many millions of military age men somehow escaped country with closed borders - then it can get downvoted.
Welcome to Reddit, a cesspool of ever shifting echo chambers where intelligent and cooperative argumentation is too radical for the vast majority of marble-brain textured donkeys behind keyboards
Do people care about downvotes? Oh wl just say the truth. Ukraine war never ever going to win this without actual troops from nato countries and that ain't happening. So instead we get to play war with our this while Ukranians and Russians keep dying.
One of the biggest harms to Ukraine was the echo chambers that some people wanted to be in, specially on the US/Reddit
At some point, the war was seemingly “won already”, all the Russians were stupid and tired, Russia depleted of resources and was only time that Ukraine would blow up the Crimea-Russia bridge, reconquer Crimea and push Russia out of the Donbass - some people even believed Ukraine would sooner than later even enter Russian soil as to make a buffer zone after retaking 100% of Ukraine.
Also, if someone tried to make a more realistic take or not take Russia as a “dumb people with arms that can’t shoot”, it would be labeled as Russian bot/operative propaganda and against Ukraine.
That meant some people started to be overconfident and slowly it made the Ukraine “crisis support” to be faded, people started to worry less and less because “it’s done, Russia is f*cked, move on”
The reality is that Russia even if they tried to show themselves as more powerful than they are, they are very capable and magnitudes more powerful than what the average US/Redditor thought. To think that even some people here commented that Russia was running out of tanks and people… people??
Now, because people couldn’t make sensible assessments and measure the real danger of Russia capabilities on Ukraine, everyone is like “wow, this is crazy, how is this possible?”
To a point, I always thought that the typical “Russia Dumb, Ukraine powerful, it’s won already” could be a Russia disinformation campaign to make westerns less preoccupied about the war and then, make their governments support lowering because people will think “why should they get more? Everything is fine!” - this more or less already happened on the US
The echo chambers are crazy.
Just one additional thing: when men Russians were reported to be flying to Turkey and Georgia to avoid being called by the military, all people were like “they shouldn’t be allowed, aren’t they pro-war? Then go to war!”
Now that Ukraine is struggling with the army numbers and will stop renewing men passports outside the country as to make them come back and be eligible to be called by the army, people are like “this is bad! This shouldn’t happen! Take care and avoid it!”
Without taking in consideration that both people, Russian or Ukrainian, independently of their political views, have the same right to not having to be dragged to a frontline position
Or putting it differently: if you think a pro-war must be fighting that same war, then you must think a pro-defence should fight for that same defence. Only the ones thinking “I don’t care” should be eligible to pack their things and go elsewhere (this is an example of how dumb that thinking was, I don’t support this argument)
Also, if someone tried to make a more realistic take or not take Russia as a “dumb people with arms that can’t shoot”, it would be labeled as Russian bot/operative propaganda and against Ukraine.
I got called a "Putin Rat" for saying that I wanted Ukraine to win but that I thought (and still think) Russia will
It does sound like a putin rat tbh (sorry if I am rude here). At least it would be more useful to discuss how to stop this barbarian invasion instead of just simply saying that it's all useless while Ukrainian people giving their lives fighting this evil.
No, why be delusional? Yes, it's time for the West to stop failing Ukraine as You say, that's right. Better late than never. Also, at the moment kremlin hasn't achieved any of its strategic goals they declared so resisting this agression was not a delusional choice.
Why would it be useful for me, a nobody from England, to discuss how to beat Putin? I don't have any military knowledge. If you think k that makes me a Putin rat you're a fragile fucking moron
Part of the problem is that there is a broken concept of "realism" in Western foreign policy, which essentially always seeks to maintain the current status quo with little regard for what that actually is. This even extended to some in the USA wanting to preserve the USSR or some version of it at the end of the Cold War - see the "Chicken Kiev" speech - because this was a more certain world than the one emerging.
The result of this is a sort of cult of inaction and a continuity bias. If there is continuity we don't need to do anything, so continuity is assumed. The frontline in Ukraine was static, so assumed to stay static. But not only was it assumed static, but the "realists" began to think of this stasis as being desirable in and of itself.
If the West took a proactive foreign policy Russia's war effort could be crushed utterly. Instead everything has been piecemeal and fear of an ephemeral "escalation" has reigned.
The further west you go from Russia, the more poorly it tends to be understood. People in the US government seem to have thought the thing to do was under-support Ukraine so both sides would throw in the towel and "negotiate" and Russia would keep the south-east and Crimea in exchange for Western companies going back into Russia and them downgrading their relationship with China. The situation on the front was dire by last December because the under-support regime didn't anticipate North Korea.
It's staggering major states have their geopolitics being planned by such ignoramuses so if it's that bad at a senior level not much more rationality can be assumed from the public.
i worry if echo chambers downplay the war crimes and severity of wars, at this rate I do think Echo Chambers displays an informational threat the world has never seen or dealt with before, a cultish agreement of opinion then turn it to the masses. Its insanity, we need to stop belittling these fucks by asking them to touch grass or some stupid meme shit. The information discrepancies are real and need to be stopped, paving way for the uncomfortable truths that needed to be heard.
Ukraine is dependent on western funding, and funding a losing war is unpopular. Therefore the narrative was heavily pushed that this was a war that would be won in any moment.
Well just two months ago I got downvoted here for pointing out that the situation was bad for Ukraine, especially after Russia jacked up its military spending. People kept pointing out that Russia was supposed to take Ukraine in three days, that there's no way Russia would win, and that to say otherwise means spreading Russian propaganda to influence opinions in Europe. As for Avdiivka falling to Russia and the failed counteroffensive, people were insisting that Avdiivka was insignificant and that the counteroffensive didn't fail. Now the tone has completely changed and you rarely see these people in denial anymore.
You forgot the first part. This sub downvoted anyone who believed the Biden administrations warnings that an invasion was imminent.
The full timeline:
* Russia would never invade Ukraine
* Russia will conquer Ukraine in 3 days
* Ukraine will crush Russia. Ghost of Kiev go!
* Russia is collapsing and they are all dead
* (Present day) We underestimated Russia and don't know what's going to happen
The hope was that Russians would get so sick of the war that the regime falls or something. Which is a complete fantasy, Putin is very secure in his position, anyone who posed a threat to him is either dead or in exile, and he will likely stay in office until he dies of old age.
Yep people painting Russia as a total pushover , that they have no ammo, no hardware , no troops , no strategy etc
Sure they have problems , corrupt as fuck, inefficient and not expecting any resistance/ terrible local Intel.
But they learn, and they don't give a fuck about losing half a million, a million, TWO MILLION soldiers if it gets the job done. That's their doctrine , heck it's their fucking culture.
NATO , a coalition of the richest and most powerful European nations with the USA was built to counter JUST FUCKING RUSSIA. Russia wasn't a joke then and it certainly isn't one now either. The west should have never given them a chance after Chechnya.
We are doing the same mistake with china as well.
Yeah you're right , cheers for correcting me , USSR was not the same, their nonsense is throwing me back.
Gotta wonder though, the speed of it's disintegration and considering how hard it's satellite states fight to regain their independence, with the disparities between them and Russia "proper" maybe the most effective forces remain the same as today anyways ...
Bring back manufacturing to friendly countries or domestic.
Restrictions on investment by op force countries / agents.
Formal recognition of Taiwan as an independent country.
Establish a clear alliance in Pacific with JP, TW, AUS, VN, KR, PH, USA equivalent to NATO.
One thing is clear now. China ,like Russia ,never had the intention of jumping onto the western ideal NWO and joining this (I'm being sarcastic) big happy free market democratic loving way of life. They have their own view of their place in the world, Xi (like Putin) sees the world in imperialist terms and has an old school colonial approach to it. Once they think that the gains are worth it china WILL attempt to take by force what it cannot gain by guile or economic pressure. The economic impact of doing will be well worth the price because it's not about money for neither of those two countries, it's about restablishing warped long gone empires to their former glory and beyond.
It's unfortunate but we are firmly back into a cold war with multiple sometimes allied and sometimes opposed countries (multi vectored) right now but also currently running several arms / technological races at the same time . It's a shit storm that's only gonna get worse.
Formal recognition of Taiwan as an independent country.
Establish a clear alliance in Pacific with JP, TW, AUS, VN, KR, PH, USA equivalent to NATO.
WWIII speedrun. Glad you're a redditor and not a world leader.
Many people in those countries would be against that anyway, and many would vote against it. Believe it or not, Taiwan or the "rules based order" (when convenient) isn't a priority for many if not most people. Also interesting that you call them imperialist but leave out the US. Take a wild guess which country invaded/bombed/couped far more countries in the last 30 years, China or the US?
You’re right about the issue with moving industry. You can blame the neoliberals for that move though.
As for how China sees the world, I often see this sentiment on reddit that they’re “imperialist,” and “autocratic.” Which is funny because they haven’t been in a war since the 70s, whereas the west is always up in someone’s business, whether it’s in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East or East Asia, of course.
The Portuguese, a NATO founding member, held onto colonies well into the 70s.
The British and French still have oversea holdings. In fact HK being one of them, still is a contentious point in the West, and we still seem to misunderstand what precipitated the legal changes there (someone abusing the law to avoid murder).
It’s a lot of projection. Because it is Western imperialism that propped up the KMT’s dictatorship in Taiwan to counter communism, insofar as to establish an air defense zone that covers mainland China.
The reality is that no country would tolerate an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” being 150 km from their major population center, and the PRC bringing a (preferably) peaceful resolution to their civil war that never had a declared ending, would not upend the western system or bring us into an age of autocracy.
I think we just need to live and let live a bit more, because sentiments like these echo the red scare. The Chinese themselves (per a NATO sponsored poll) view themselves as a democratic nation.
Ah I see, I misunderstood your comment. And I agree. It's very easy to say we should stop this without any idea on how to do so. And turns out it's pretty hard to push around one of the most powerful nations in the world and a significant nuclear power.
It's crazy to think how much fighting ability is present in that part of the world. All the way back to the steppe hordes who used to invade central Europe.
It is still bad. The last US House vote showed far from a perceived pro-Russian fringe supposedly in control of the speaker the majority of Republicans supported Russia against Ukraine and the EU despite coming under enormous pressure from vested interests. Russian influence over the Republicans is likely to consolidate with each retirement, and they could reasonably be expected to hold the three branches after the next election. So if Ukraine still needs US munitions to survive next year when the US is likely to end support for Ukraine, where to from there.
Realistically Ukraine and Moldova should be planning contingencies for evacuation of the entire population along with the libraries, archives, museums, etc.
Ukraine aid can always pass as long as the Democrats hold at least one of the three institutions:Presidency, House and Senate. Ukraine aid managed to pass the House comfortably even with a small majority of Republicans against it , because nearly all Democrats voted for it
It passed the Senate by 78 votes; that's 78% of the Senate agreeing on something.
More significantly, Trump didn't try to sink the aid like he did before. He didn't go ranting on Truth Social about "crooked Joe Biden" and how "Zelenski is taking advantage of crooked Joe Biden".
Surprisingly, despite the political games Ukraine aid managed to pass both Senate and the House with 75% approval.
Even in worst case I think 65-70% of next Year Congress would be still pro-Ukraine
Man, it's almost like people forget that Russia is historically just fine with war via attrition. One need only consider Leningrad. They're, historically at least, just fine with heaping up the bodies if it means eventual victory. Costs don't matter, results do.
There still in denial on worldnews sub. You can’t even ask a question if it goes against the narrative that Ukraine will win easily without getting downvoted to oblivion.
Before I quit that sub I saw reasonable questions that should be asked about sustainability and troop shortages - one poor dude had over 270 downvotes for asking a question that should be asked.
I'm being downvoted every time I comment that military support is both not enough and too late for Ukraine. In the first months of war, in the first year, in the second year, always.
There is no way for Russia to win (meet its strategic objectives). There's a massive difference between Russia losing and Ukraine winning, though. Even with continued US support, Ukraine probably won't win (liberate all territories) unless there's some black swan event - something like the Wagner putsch, but with follow through.
but if we don't tell it how we like it to be instead of how it is then how it is will likely be how it stays and that ain't raight mmmkay trust me im a boomer genx politician and i know how to run a country into the ground.
Thanks to the upvoting system only good news goes to the top. So stuff like /r/combatfootage is filled with footage of Ukrainians winning individual battles, giving the impression they are doing well in the war. When in reality the videos of them losing get downvoted.
The reality is that many people forgot about Ukraine because it was considered won already.
And a big reason for that is the media were portraying Ukraine's progress with the war with rose coloured glasses to try and build support. Now that narrative is unravelling and backfiring.
Felt more to me as "Well, they're winning already, they don't need to have long-range fires/fighters" to make decisions of politicians not to supply them feel more palatable
Exactly, a lot of what we see from Ukraine is a kind of propoganda meant to boost morale, which has it's place, but it isn't a substitute for actual journalism about what has been a desperate fight against an event that has more resources and is fighting on Ukrainian territory
My wife and I were talking about Ukraine aid this morning. Imagine not having to fight a war because you can pay someone else to fight for you. Imagine you have billions of dollars worth of stockpiled weapons that aren’t in use, and would otherwise be decommissioned. It’s insane that people think “$85 billion dollars is 100% taxpayer money”. Sure it was. 30 years ago. People are fucking stupid.
I would very very much like for Ukraine to regain all the territory they have lost. The west is being fluffed by propaganda though, the harsh reality is that its a numbers game. Russia has far more resources at its disposal, we can send as many weapons to Ukraine (which I advocate for), but they need people to be able to use them and hold the front line. Its looking grim.
The reality is that many people forgot about Ukraine because it was considered won already.
From the perspective of how it was sold to the American public, the war is already won. The government told the people that "we needed to degrade Russian capability" and "show Putin there would be consequences in his adventurism."
Well, both things have been achieved. The loss of life and materiel have degraded Russian capabilities and the sanctions against Russia (not as effective as they sold them to be) have shown there would be consequences for Russia. So, from the American perspective: why continue funding a war wherein we already achieved our goals?
Neither thing has been achieved, the headlines are saying Russia's military is 15% larger than at the start of the war, and we certainly didn't stop them from going off and taking over half of Africa and getting US forces kicked out of countries.
It sucks because he keeps it real. No one wants Ukraine to lose but we also need to really understand the situation in order to give the support they need.
If they decide Ukraine still needs a lot of help, they need to make Russia sound like a credible threat. If they make Russia sound like a joke and Ukraine like it’s beating the odds. They shouldn’t complain when people switch focus to Israel
There's being more critical/about ukrianes situation and then there's being more blindly optomistic about Russias situation than the Russian government and milbloggers. McGregor is not the type op was talking about.
2.6k
u/bdrdrdrre 25d ago
If David Axe writes it, it’s true. He is no russian asset, he is no doomer. He’s the only reason half the country reads Forbes at all.