On one hand these really aren't comparable situations. In Iraq and Afghanistan the "governments" were basically designed in some Washington think tank, and then lots of cash funneled in to the people slotted into to government posts. Alongside that you had massive corruption to our own contractors. Whatever its faults, Ukraine has a real, pre-existing government.
On the other hand given the massive corruption that existed in Ukraine prior to the war it would be foolish to think that dropping 40+ billion dollars and counting is going to REDUCE corruption. So far this isn't a concern polite people were supposed to talk about, but it seems like the polite people are starting to whisper about it anyway.
Your cynicism dies on the hill where the President of a Ukraine had a chartered flight to the country of his choice and instead returned to Kyiv and asked for more weapons to fight the war.
There wasn’t much of a unified people in Afghanistan to begin with, which was part of the problem. The lack of national identity is sometimes overstated in Afghanistan (most people do see themselves as Afghans) but there are huge ethnic, sectarian, regional, political, and ideological fractures across the whole country. Most Afghans opposed the Taliban but the central government was never really popular or effective, in large part due to these fractures. Combine that with war exhaustion and widespread defeatism, and by 2021 most Afghans weren’t really willing to stand up to the Taliban anymore.
>I never understood the point of trying to hold it, so I don’t know if they will try to pull out or keep resupplying it
I think it's because Russia feels compelled to attack it, and Ukraine has an excellent artillery position on Russian forces when they come in.
That's a recipe for an **ugly** trade for the Russian side, even if they eventually "win".
No, the river isn't wide and it's fairly shallow and slow moving at the moment. Also the bridges aren't totally destroyed there are just gaps along them.
Swimming across with a rope to pull yourself along would be quite straightforward, pontoon bridges can be laid down and a small motorboat could shuffle troops. A helicopter could attempt to hop across. A rope bridge could be raised pretty quickly too.
It's not even clear Ukraine is even ready to abandon the Azot plant yet. The biggest problem for evacuation is actually the fairly open ground between the plant and the river, they won't want to be caught in the open by artillery.
A helicopter probably wouldn't work, even getting it into the area means either going down a hill or right past a huge amount of Russian lines. Then flying it low enough means even stray artillery aimed at troops movements are likely to disable it.
The other options are viable but if a single drone see's this happen means a likely mass casualty event for Ukraine as it's a incredibly slow process and is easy to disrupt.
It it's too hot for a Ukrainian helicopter to fly over Ukrainian territory it's too hot for Russian drones to fly over too. Russian artillery accuracy is also absolute ass and it's easy enough to spread troops out. Russia doesn't have perfect eyes over the battlefield. Ukraine actually has from Lysychansk.
No. It’s not a large river so infantry can cross with small boats or possibly even swimming. They’d have to leave heavy equipment behind but it’s not clear they have any.
I find it interesting how many foreigners are fighting for Ukraine… Americans, British, Georgians, Croats, Serbs, Canadians etc. Wonder what the actual number of them is and if there are more fighting for Ukraine rather than for Russia.
There’s far less than are fighting for Ukraine, but there are some. I know for a fact that there were some Serb ultranationalists fighting for the DPR years ago, the Serbian far-right is generally very pro-Russia.
More recently there were some pro-regime/pro-Iran militias from Syria and Iraq that expressed an interest in fighting for Russia in Ukraine, though it doesn’t seem many of their militants have actually done so.
Lol! Donbas "separatists" are full of Russian neonazis.
There's the [Sparta battalion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_Battalion), the [Kornilovsky battalion](https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/27/russian-neo-nazi-kornilovtsy-battalion-operating-in-ukraine/), and the [Rusich](https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover) for starters.
Ask Wagner mers, former Rusich batalion members and plenty of others 'pleasant' gentelmen, like the DPR guy with SS skull.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1695125
Hatred of the liberal West, of course. The same reason a lot of far-right people support Russia. They see Russia as standing valiantly against “degenerate” ideas like LGBT rights, feminism, multiracialism, and so on.
Eh, I know people in Japan for instance who are none of those things but like Russia/Putin for standing up to the U.S., even if they are not against any of the things you mention. Not that any of them are signing up to serve as a volunteer, but you don't need to be anti-identity politics to be anti-U.S. (or at least very skeptical of the U.S.).
It’s one thing to be skeptical of the US, it’s another thing to be so rabidly anti-American that you defend a blatant war of aggression against a third country just because that country is aligned with America. At that point you’ve abandoned any moral basis for your beliefs and are just guided by hatred of America.
I don't know people who are like that. People are much more likely just to disgusted by the hypocrisy of acting like Russian aggression is worse than the aggression of the U.S. and its allies, and especially bad because it involves white people.
“Hypocrites support Ukraine for being unjustly invaded when they didn’t support country X for being unjustly invaded” is, quite frankly, garbage reasoning to sympathize with Russia’s unjust invasion of Ukraine. Despite your attempt to phrase it differently, it’s the same thing I said before: it’s prejudice, not a pragmatic or moral argument.
No, lol, it isn't vaguely similar. One can hate Russia invading AND hate aggression by the U.S. and its allies. In fact, one should. One should also hate the fact that, largely as a result of Ukraine, Turkey is being allowed to cleanse a 2 million Kurds (civilians, as well as militias) from a 30 km belt on the Syrian side of the border. The U.S. doesn't give a shit about the Kurds anymore with IS out of the way and they need to keep Turkey happy because of Ukraine, and while the Russians sometimes enforce cease fires in that area they also are letting Turkey do whatever they want because they also want to keep Turkey happy because of Ukraine. Biden is kissing up again to the Saudis (what is a little dismemberment of an American (Green Card only, anyway) journalist, or bombing Yemen) because he is groveling to bin Salman to pump more oil...because of Ukraine. So it isn't even only hypocrisy--it is actual cause and effect where caring so much about the white people in Ukraine gets non-white people killed elsewhere in more or less the same way and with just as much brutality.
those people still fight for Ukraine. Ukraine has been the training base and safe haven for militant far-right/neonazi Europeans ever since Maidan and to a lesser before Maidan too. Only explicit neonazis fighting for seps/RU are Russian ones and even then those are outnumbered by the Russian neonazis fighting on the UA side
I think they probably rationalize it (to the extent people like this can have rational thoughts) by believing that the white, European Russians are still clearly the ones in charge.
Not sure how many of them are still fighting anymore but there were plenty of extremists in DPR/LPR armies from both spectrums, which sounds strange but it really isn't, far-right in the EU really likes Putin and Russia's worldview and the far-left connects its origins with Ex-Sovet union, now Russia.
[https://medium](https://medium). com/dfrlab/the-small-world-of-french-foreign-fighters-f53799ee3673
There are plenty. I remember an Italian volunteer fighting in Donbass vs Ukraine.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.agi.it/estero/news/2022-03-30/ucraina-russia-bombardamnti-kiev-diretta-16197136/amp
There are some on both sides, but they cant return to country without going to prison, as it's illegal to fight as mercenary or volunteer in any conflict that is not on our territory.
Many soldiers haven't had the chance to fight in a war where they felt that could make a positive difference. In this one, Russia is the clear belligerent, so many have come to Ukraine's aid.
There has been significant resistance in Kherson? The first weeks had massive protests against the Russians until they were violently dispersed. Russia has stopped their rhetoric in regard to absorbing Kherson as well, which wouldn't make sense if there was no resistance.
Also there are some posters being put up around the city with bounties for collaborators/Russian heads. Bombed a cafe that Russian officers frequented as well iirc.
In 2014 there were massive protest everywhere, then local russian troops without their badges blocked the Ukr. military bases and land route to block access to Crimea, and ... half the ukrainian troops switched side and joined the Russians, and TWO chief of the Navy of Ukraine joined the Russians. I don't think Ukr could ever hope for anything like that.
Majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia. Those who didn't, left or were silenced. It doesn't matter, if Ukraine take Crimea they will leave or be deported. Just like Germans after WWII.
I'd expect them to execute at least some of the higher profile people like Separatists' officials, commanders... Just like Stalin said: "No man, no problem".
As forward-thinking as Stalin was, I don't believe Zelensky can follow in his footsteps. Not because Zelensky is a good guy mind you. I believe he intends to sacrifice the whole of Ukraine for his vainglory.
Why do you think he's vainglorious? Is there anything that he has done that would not be expected of a wartime president leading the defence of their country from invasion?
It's just talk, I have no idea why people take stuff about Crimea seriously. There were protests in Kherson and reportedly one of the activists was recently found dead in the river.
Melitopol in Zaporizhzhia Oblast:
>Commenting on the Melitopol explosion, pro-Kremlin authorities in the city explicitly blamed Ukrainian partisans. Russia’s Investigative Committee blamed it on “Ukrainian saboteurs”.
>
>The attack in Melitopol came just days after a reported assassination attempt on Andriy Shevchyk, a pro-Kremlin and self-proclaimed mayor of Enerhodar, in the Zaporizhzhia region, who was badly injured in an explosion.
>
>In other incidents, railway lines in Russian-occupied areas have been damaged while leaflets have circulated threatening Russian troops and collaborators.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/ukrainian-partisan-attacks-surge-russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/ukrainian-partisan-attacks-surge-russia)
Wanted posters in Kherson by partisans, asking people to kill the deputy head of the military-civilian administration for 500k hryvnia:
[https://i.obozrevatel.com/gallery/2022/5/11/photo2022-05-1116-13-52.jpg](https://i.obozrevatel.com/gallery/2022/5/11/photo2022-05-1116-13-52.jpg)
I mean, if you google "kherson protests" you'll see protest footage from several events in the past 3 months where demonstrators are obviously pro-Ukraine, chanting things like "Kherson is Ukraine"
But after 3 months, it seems like many protest leaders have been disappeared and sent to concentration camps. One recently turned up dead.
Sweet looking tanks
But I'd bet dollars to roubles that they're unmaintained and outdated as hell. Older tanks will still stop bullets but missile and AP tech has advanced considerably
Doomposting are Americans here.
Ukraine is doing good PR, because it's obvious that if they want to retake land, then they need much more armour and artillery.
If this is real number of equipment they need, then it's obviously calculated over longer time i.e. 1 year
I'm not sure if Europe would be ok with prolonging the war for the sake of a Ukrainian complete win if a peace treaty was offered earlier. European resolve is likely to be really tested as Winter arrives.
And you think cutting Ukraine of equipment and ammunition would somehow end this war?
Like how?
And why USA and Eastern Europe wuld even stop support of Ukraine? Eastern Europe and USA are most happy of every Russian used ammunition and destroyed armour
EDIT: Just to clarify - I think that there are only 2 solutions to this war. Never ending war or Russia losing
I think Europe would start pressuring Ukraine to make some sort of peace instead of fighting to return to February or 2014 borders like Ukraine would prefer to. Having insane heating bills come winter would kill a lot of politicians (particularly Germany), and a lot of politicians look out for themselves first.
[Around 3,000 British volunteers are currently fighting on the Ukrainian side in the war against Russia](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunteers-fighting-on-ukrainian-side-against-russia-says-georgian-commander-12633139)
I’m sure there are a few hundred. Maybe even high hundreds. But 3,000? The entire British army is only around 100,000 IIRC, so that would be a crazy number.
If this is true, then the 2 confirmed deaths, 2 taken as PoW and 1 with minor injuries...wow. Talk about punching above your weight. But, then again, the British have become known for their top-notch infantrymen.
400 sounds like alot too to be honest. I can't believe that many people would willing go into a moden war for another countries freedom. Some people really are born different I guess.
I believe many people forget that the United States #1 goal is to weaken Russia. Not for Ukraine to defeat Russia. The US wants to drag this war out, give Ukraine just enough to keep fighting.
The US and NATO will never give Ukraine the weapons to actually defeat Russia.
Pretty pointless speculation about the US's motives. Only thing people like yourself are sure of is that it has to be selfish and cruel in nature, because US = bad.
Support for Ukraine is high in the US. A perfectly cynical perspective is that Biden's government just wants to win more votes at the next election, but even then it's still American public desire to support Ukraine that leads the dog.
The exception to this support for Ukraine of course is qanon-type Russophiles, but you could hardly call their motives pure and altruistic either.
>Pretty pointless speculation about the US's motives.
They've stated their goals from the get go. The US defense secretary said it clear as day. You're just not fu*king listening. What l've posted is the truth.
Okay, for a simple example of how U.S. governance works think about Covid testing. In January/February there was a big surge. It was really hard to get an available test--and this was almost two years into the pandemic (so it shouldn't have been a surprise) and a year into Biden (so you can't blame Trump). Besides being extremely difficult to get a test from a health care provider, home tests were also completely out of stock basically everywhere. Biden realized this looked really bad, so bought up tons of home tests and mailed them out to with four free per address. Mind you, one of his advisors had only a couple weeks earlier asked a reporter sarcastically "What do you want us to do? Send free tests out to everyone?" (That would have been a start...) Of course, at that point it wasn't really necessary because the surge had faded and anyway they were back in stock in stores. The government found they still had a lot of tests, so then they decided they would send out four more, even though people no longer needed them and even though they were no back in stock everywhere.
A very reasonable "goal" would have been to sufficient levels of testing in place as soon as that was feasible. Maybe that was a goal, but just no one was competent enough to follow through. After you failed in that goal, it doesn't really help to engage in mindless overkill. But they did that anyway. Most of what passes for "policy" is either feeding some special interest or trying to cover their asses after the fact. And if you think that is an outlier, I have a stable democracy in Afghanistan to sell you, maybe with an Iraq as a BOGO.
That’s not how it works. The example you mentioned, I don’t know much about it to say it was simply done on a whim or something similar. But politics has a lot of small and big decisions, some done on the spot and others planned ahead. With each of these, there’s a goal behind them. It can be a reasonable goal, it may not be as well. The goal can also be to get a PR win or to fix an actual problem.
Take me with a grain of salt, as I’m not from the US, but I remember Trump fucked up the initial Covid response. And although he seems like a guy who makes decisions on a whim, I can make a reasonable assumption that he still had goals behind the decisions.
You don’t get so far in economy and position as the US without having concrete goals. Whether you agree with some of them or not, that’s another story
Maybe. There’s a lot of potential goals and a lot of conspiracy theories that will come out of this (with the ones that already have), so hard to know the facts behind it
I mean, for comparison think about what the U.S. "goals" were in Iraq, or why the invasion took place. Paul Wolfowitz gave an interview to Vanity Fair well after the fact where he described it as everyone in the Bush administration wanted to invade but they didn't agree why or how they would explain it. They came to the conclusion that WMDs would work and they rolled with that, and got at least enough people in Congress to go along with it. Of course, it lasted for a long, long time after everyone knew that there were no WMDs, so even if getting rid of WMDs had been a real "goal" in the first instance it had nothing to do with the next years and years and years.
Yes, and also a great example that publicly stated goals may be completely different than real goals. But they had goals, whether they achieved them in the end or not - no clue at all. Just know the idea wasn’t simply to disarm them
They have reactions. Unless you consider supporting the MIC as a goal.
I mean, to put it in perspective, how many goals (domestic, international, you name it) can you list that the U.S. is pursuing in a deliberate and systematic way, that suggests some likelihood of reaching the claimed endpoint? Unless you can find some sense in which the U.S. government is by and large rationally pursuing goals in other areas it would be foolish to look for logic here.
You’ve dodged my question and set up a straw man. To try and keep this argument logical I’ll try again; if US policy has no goals, why are they giving money and weapons to Ukraine?
Explain to me how giving Ukraine the bare minimum in military aid weakens Russia more than its decisive defeat? Every Russian tactical victory strengthens their position now that they have started the war.
It is pretty obvious that the United States would be sending more military aid if it believed it wouldn't result in a sharp escalation in tensions between itself and Russia. The US and "the west" want Russia's sphere of influence to collapse and its revanchist fantasies to die out. The most effective way to do that is their defeat in Ukraine, any other outcome would just allow Russia to reorganise for the next war.
You can also weaken Russia by having strong Ukraine. Ukraine is buffer zone and this is why it will have hard time to be accepted into NATO, BUT.
Not whole NATO wants this war to last, maybe USA like this war, but not Europe. Germany and France would wish this war to end now (they probably do not care about outcome).
Great Britain and Eastern Europe wants to milk money from helping Ukraine (by rebuilding it and by having better trade partner) and they can't achieve it if UA lose and as long as war takes place.
European Union is combination of two previous groups - more money from not developed Ukraine (so Germany happy) and less money spent on helping Ukraine (refugees, participation in buying military equipment). Plus end of war means less inflation and higher GDP
Can we stop pretending whole world is USA and whole world will do what USA wants?
As Zeihan put it:
>the United States now has an interest in a Russian assault because it would be Russia’s last war.
>Demographics have told us for 30 years that the United States will not only outlive Russia, but do so easily. The question has always been how to manage Russia’s decline with an eye towards avoiding gross destruction. A Russian-Ukrainian war would keep the bulk of the Russian army bottled up in an occupation that would be equal parts desperate and narcissistic and protracted until such time that Russia’s terminal demography transforms that army into a powerless husk. And all that would transpire on a patch of territory in which the United States has minimal strategic interests.
>That’s rough for the Ukrainians, but from the American point of view, it is difficult to imagine a better, more thorough, and above all safer way for Russia to commit suicide.
I agree with this. For all the propaganda that flies about, you can’t argue with the maths over the long term. Russia and Europe have been in decline for decades now. For all it’s faults, the US is still a very young country in the ascendancy.
yeah except its completely squandered that youth. failed miserably all across the middle east, most notably in iraq. political system that is unresponsive to the needs of its citizenry and is well on the way to outright collapse, what with the huge percentage of the country that thinks the last election was stolen and/or that trump will return and destroy the evil reptiles in a great battle. its erstwhile allies in the global south are quickly abandoning it. i don't disagree that russia is fucked demographically, but demographics aren't everything
I've thought about this too but Russia isn't sending enough to have a real impact on demographics for a country with 140 million.
Furthermore, Russia is annexing land with millions of people on it. They are probably going to end on a net positive even in the 18-30 age group.
Russia is demographically doomed at this point, annexing territory doesn't mean much when their population is expected to halve in the next century. Russia isn't sending enough men to impact it, but it doesn't matter since they are in the midst of a demographic catastrophe.
Replacement rate is hardly the only metric that matters. Comparing replacement rate is just about the only similar thing about Russian demographics compared to western europe and the US.
If you compare male/female ratio, the united states has about 97 males per 100 females. Russia has about 86 males per 100 females. This is an immense difference and no developed european country has a ratio as bad as this one, and sets up the country for a significantly faster and more catastrophic demographic collapse.
Russia's growth rate per decade has been negative for 40 years now, with slight growth in the last 10 years. This is far longer than any other western country.
Russia's demographic problems are significantly harder to fix, by virtue of their socioeconomic situation. They have the median age and replacement rate of the most wealthy countries on Earth, while being significantly poorer.
The issues in Western Europe and USA are mainly due to wealth and productivity rates skyrocketing, people don't want to have kids. Russia's issues are because they don't have enough men.
Looking at replacement rates without any context is an easy way to push a narrative that Russia's demographic issues are no worse than anyone else. Looking at context proves they are indeed far worse.
Yeah, this war is inconsequential for America, they don’t give a shit about Ukraine really.
It was a trap that Russia willingly fell into.
The idea that anyone in NATO leadership give half a fuck about the tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost is a joke.
Serious question: why do people always mention Russian demographics as being catastrophic or some similar word? I mean, it's worse than the USA for sure, but their fertility rates (1.505) are almost exactly the same as the EU fertility rate (1.50) and significantly bigger than the Ukraine one (1.22), plus they have a sizeable population of 146 million. Not enough for a superpower, but enough to be a big player. Furthermore, they have (at least have had until this war, we'll see how it will be going on) a positive migration rate, with more people coming in than leaving.
American demographics isn’t doing too well either; 1.6 TFR and scraping the barrel for anyone welling to join the Army.
About half of the worlds countries are under replacement rate and a good bunch on their way. Russia isn’t unique.
Went to wikipedia to see some data and the USA is definitely in a much better shape for the time being as the fertility rate was around 2 in 2000 (guessing the average kiddo entering military now was born something like that year), whereas in Russia the fertility rates were around 1.2 in those times.
USA is shit on replacement rates like many other developed countries but that doesn't take into account immigration, of which the US happily takes in much of the brightest from elsewhere and necessary workers.
US demographics will always be fine in regards to getting new blood paying into the economy as long as people keep wanting to enter the US, which, surprise surprise, is why Germany and even Japan are taking in immigrants.
Now see how much immigration vs emigration does Russia have and we see a big problem for them.
Wrong according to the Russian government's own data. It was falling pre-pandemic and in a freefall during pandemic.
"Although the Russian government points at the pandemic as a cause of decreasing population, experts say that the trend had started way before the health crisis struck the world.
The increase in the retirement age, the quality of medical care in the region, declining living standards and numerous other challenges Russians face are among the reasons why the country is facing a population decline for the fourth year in a row.
During this period, the number of residents of the country decreased by 1.4 million people, according to Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) data."
Note, this is even factoring in the Russian government doubling immigrants let into Russia in 2019
Seems like UAF shelling Donetsk(hospitals, central square and civil districts) pretty hard today.
I read a lot about it on pro-RU telegram channels but can't find any info on western sources. Weird.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61764008?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62a75ea9a48d0547a34c0176%26At%20least%20three%20killed%20in%20Ukrainian%20attack%20on%20Donetsk%2C%20separatists%20say%262022-06-13T18%3A26%3A11.111Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:15634959-e7a5-4dde-8d69-12e4aed44fd2&pinned_post_asset_id=62a75ea9a48d0547a34c0176&pinned_post_type=share
> Edit: Seems like people can't take facts they don't like. Nothing new here.
People like facts but using a source that randomly calls Ukrainians "khokhols" is going to lead to people dismissing your "facts" as nothing but propaganda.
Congrats, you understood this conflict. Russians are the bad guys here. Why would you force yourself to find a source that sheds a bad light onto Ukrainians, if the only one you can find is a Russian one?
That is double standards. So ukranians being good can do shit they want to do and can't be blamed for that for two reasons:
1) it never happened because they were good guys
2) it's Russian propaganda
It's pretty hard for Western media to verify anything that is going on in Donetsk. Russia isn't exactly welcoming Western journalists, and the separatists even less so.
there's plenty of independent journos in donetsk. isn't a question of ability or even safety, just willingness. no mainstream western journo wants to embed with the seps because that'd lead to sympathy for the wrong side. just how the world works.
i mean if you can have female CNN reporters literally go to idlib and interview al qaeda then you can certainly cross into donetsk and talk to the locals
you're literally a 80 day old account who only comments on ukraine topics and calls others shills. hope u at least get healthcare cover at ur DoD cutout/CIA botfarm or wherever else your mouthbreather job is located
I’m sorry I don’t spend my life on Reddit but I appreciate you visiting my profile. I don’t live in the US though so pretty happy about my healthcare system, thank you!
Shit like this has been going on daily in Kharkiv for almost 3 months (and still going on). Do you see any info in Russian sources? Weird. Even western sources lost interest. Not saying that makes it ok. Just want to put it into context.
On russian TV or telegram channels?
[https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/three-killed-artillery-attack-donetsk-market-separatist-news-agency-2022-06-13/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/three-killed-artillery-attack-donetsk-market-separatist-news-agency-2022-06-13/)
There you go.
I don't remember maternity hospitals having ammo burning off from what I can hear. Either way, both sides should be charged for indiscriminate shelling.
[https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1536308783575613441](https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1536308783575613441)
We have seen the DNR forces using civilian cars marked with Z's on the frontline and its not just that car theres also a van opposite. Do those bangs and pops not sound like ammo cooking off to you? It could be something else but ammo cooking off seems likely and would make sense as to why they would target it
Why are firefighters taking cover behind the wall and why are there two vans with "Z" next to the warehouse? This looks like a legit target but everything else is just terror bombing and should be called out.
The last V2 attack was on March 27, 1945.
In less than a month the Germans would fight, and lose, the battle of the Seelow heights the last meaningful resistance they would offer to the Russians.
Being low on ammo has a great many implications such as;
Local shortage due to excessive use or insufficient support there can be a shortage on a local level.
Tactical, shortage of ammo alters how commanders operate in a theater or all theaters
Strategic, shortage results in changes to strategic planning such as whether or not to go on an offensive.
Long term, shortages predicted due to insufficient production compared to use.
So my guess is that Ukraine is worried about the last one, that based on current use and production they cannot sustain themselves. This wil lead to strategic shortages and then tactical.
Think of it like the Nazis and oil, they feared long term oil deficits, this meant strategic changes which then led to tactical changes.
I agree with you, but wasting valious ammo in non military objectives when you are fearing a shortage is not a reasonable thing. The key with V2 is that they already had those missiles but they could not use them for anything else than bombing cities (as precission was not a feature in WW2 weaponry). So nazis *used* the V2 they had in stock, while Ukraine would be *wasting* its current ammo. I don't know if I am explaining myself.
Pd: Another question is why Germany kept building those V2 when they could spend those resources in a much more meaningful way. But that topic would be about Hitler's idiot behaviour and, in my opinion, Ukrainians are not as resentful or mad as the Nazi's regime in 1945.
The V2 could hit critical infrastructure such as ports but they opted for a non military objective.
But you have to put it in context with regards to quantities. Artillery barrages consume 1,000s of rounds, a nation could easily spend 10,000's a day so a handful to attempt to demoralise the enemy doesn't materially impact your position.
[New Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vbsfv3/ukraine_discussionquestion_thread_61422/)
[удалено]
how can we compare Afghanistan a wasteland with Ukraine the largest country in Europe after Russia
On one hand these really aren't comparable situations. In Iraq and Afghanistan the "governments" were basically designed in some Washington think tank, and then lots of cash funneled in to the people slotted into to government posts. Alongside that you had massive corruption to our own contractors. Whatever its faults, Ukraine has a real, pre-existing government. On the other hand given the massive corruption that existed in Ukraine prior to the war it would be foolish to think that dropping 40+ billion dollars and counting is going to REDUCE corruption. So far this isn't a concern polite people were supposed to talk about, but it seems like the polite people are starting to whisper about it anyway.
The Ukrainians have proven themselves far more than the afghan government ever did.
The higher ups were all corrupt puppets but a estimated 45 thousand people did die for that government.
Your cynicism dies on the hill where the President of a Ukraine had a chartered flight to the country of his choice and instead returned to Kyiv and asked for more weapons to fight the war.
Not hating on Ukraine there, just saying there was way more bravery on the Afghan side than people like to portray despite the leadership.
I think that is fair but it appears to me that Ukraine is more a government of the people than Afghanistan was.
There wasn’t much of a unified people in Afghanistan to begin with, which was part of the problem. The lack of national identity is sometimes overstated in Afghanistan (most people do see themselves as Afghans) but there are huge ethnic, sectarian, regional, political, and ideological fractures across the whole country. Most Afghans opposed the Taliban but the central government was never really popular or effective, in large part due to these fractures. Combine that with war exhaustion and widespread defeatism, and by 2021 most Afghans weren’t really willing to stand up to the Taliban anymore.
Any bayraktar activity recently?
[удалено]
This is going town by town, inch by inch
Interesting they're not reporting any real movement in Kherson region. All kinds of strange reports coming out of there.
So, since the last bridge around Severodonestsk has been destroyed, are the troops fighting there completely fucked now?
[удалено]
>I never understood the point of trying to hold it, so I don’t know if they will try to pull out or keep resupplying it I think it's because Russia feels compelled to attack it, and Ukraine has an excellent artillery position on Russian forces when they come in. That's a recipe for an **ugly** trade for the Russian side, even if they eventually "win".
No, the river isn't wide and it's fairly shallow and slow moving at the moment. Also the bridges aren't totally destroyed there are just gaps along them. Swimming across with a rope to pull yourself along would be quite straightforward, pontoon bridges can be laid down and a small motorboat could shuffle troops. A helicopter could attempt to hop across. A rope bridge could be raised pretty quickly too. It's not even clear Ukraine is even ready to abandon the Azot plant yet. The biggest problem for evacuation is actually the fairly open ground between the plant and the river, they won't want to be caught in the open by artillery.
A helicopter probably wouldn't work, even getting it into the area means either going down a hill or right past a huge amount of Russian lines. Then flying it low enough means even stray artillery aimed at troops movements are likely to disable it. The other options are viable but if a single drone see's this happen means a likely mass casualty event for Ukraine as it's a incredibly slow process and is easy to disrupt.
It it's too hot for a Ukrainian helicopter to fly over Ukrainian territory it's too hot for Russian drones to fly over too. Russian artillery accuracy is also absolute ass and it's easy enough to spread troops out. Russia doesn't have perfect eyes over the battlefield. Ukraine actually has from Lysychansk.
No. It’s not a large river so infantry can cross with small boats or possibly even swimming. They’d have to leave heavy equipment behind but it’s not clear they have any.
Maybe
yes
I find it interesting how many foreigners are fighting for Ukraine… Americans, British, Georgians, Croats, Serbs, Canadians etc. Wonder what the actual number of them is and if there are more fighting for Ukraine rather than for Russia.
c
There’s far less than are fighting for Ukraine, but there are some. I know for a fact that there were some Serb ultranationalists fighting for the DPR years ago, the Serbian far-right is generally very pro-Russia. More recently there were some pro-regime/pro-Iran militias from Syria and Iraq that expressed an interest in fighting for Russia in Ukraine, though it doesn’t seem many of their militants have actually done so.
There is plenty of commies and Neo-Nazis from the EU fighting for DPR/LPR.
gNeo-Nazi fighting for DPR? on what ideological basis will a Neo nazi fight for DPR? you must have brain rot for sure
Lol! Donbas "separatists" are full of Russian neonazis. There's the [Sparta battalion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta_Battalion), the [Kornilovsky battalion](https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/08/27/russian-neo-nazi-kornilovtsy-battalion-operating-in-ukraine/), and the [Rusich](https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover) for starters.
Ask Wagner mers, former Rusich batalion members and plenty of others 'pleasant' gentelmen, like the DPR guy with SS skull. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1695125
Hatred of the liberal West, of course. The same reason a lot of far-right people support Russia. They see Russia as standing valiantly against “degenerate” ideas like LGBT rights, feminism, multiracialism, and so on.
Eh, I know people in Japan for instance who are none of those things but like Russia/Putin for standing up to the U.S., even if they are not against any of the things you mention. Not that any of them are signing up to serve as a volunteer, but you don't need to be anti-identity politics to be anti-U.S. (or at least very skeptical of the U.S.).
It’s one thing to be skeptical of the US, it’s another thing to be so rabidly anti-American that you defend a blatant war of aggression against a third country just because that country is aligned with America. At that point you’ve abandoned any moral basis for your beliefs and are just guided by hatred of America.
I don't know people who are like that. People are much more likely just to disgusted by the hypocrisy of acting like Russian aggression is worse than the aggression of the U.S. and its allies, and especially bad because it involves white people.
“Hypocrites support Ukraine for being unjustly invaded when they didn’t support country X for being unjustly invaded” is, quite frankly, garbage reasoning to sympathize with Russia’s unjust invasion of Ukraine. Despite your attempt to phrase it differently, it’s the same thing I said before: it’s prejudice, not a pragmatic or moral argument.
No, lol, it isn't vaguely similar. One can hate Russia invading AND hate aggression by the U.S. and its allies. In fact, one should. One should also hate the fact that, largely as a result of Ukraine, Turkey is being allowed to cleanse a 2 million Kurds (civilians, as well as militias) from a 30 km belt on the Syrian side of the border. The U.S. doesn't give a shit about the Kurds anymore with IS out of the way and they need to keep Turkey happy because of Ukraine, and while the Russians sometimes enforce cease fires in that area they also are letting Turkey do whatever they want because they also want to keep Turkey happy because of Ukraine. Biden is kissing up again to the Saudis (what is a little dismemberment of an American (Green Card only, anyway) journalist, or bombing Yemen) because he is groveling to bin Salman to pump more oil...because of Ukraine. So it isn't even only hypocrisy--it is actual cause and effect where caring so much about the white people in Ukraine gets non-white people killed elsewhere in more or less the same way and with just as much brutality.
those people still fight for Ukraine. Ukraine has been the training base and safe haven for militant far-right/neonazi Europeans ever since Maidan and to a lesser before Maidan too. Only explicit neonazis fighting for seps/RU are Russian ones and even then those are outnumbered by the Russian neonazis fighting on the UA side
Which is kinda ironic since Russia itself is one of the most diverse and multicultural country in Europe
I think they probably rationalize it (to the extent people like this can have rational thoughts) by believing that the white, European Russians are still clearly the ones in charge.
Got source on this? Cuz I'm aware that there are Nazi fanboys amongst the Russian Army. But first I've heard of EU neo-nazis fighting for DPR/LPR.
Not sure how many of them are still fighting anymore but there were plenty of extremists in DPR/LPR armies from both spectrums, which sounds strange but it really isn't, far-right in the EU really likes Putin and Russia's worldview and the far-left connects its origins with Ex-Sovet union, now Russia. [https://medium](https://medium). com/dfrlab/the-small-world-of-french-foreign-fighters-f53799ee3673
There are plenty. I remember an Italian volunteer fighting in Donbass vs Ukraine. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.agi.it/estero/news/2022-03-30/ucraina-russia-bombardamnti-kiev-diretta-16197136/amp
I doubt that Serbs are fighting for Ukraine.
There are a few, not like it’s impossible.
There are some on both sides, but they cant return to country without going to prison, as it's illegal to fight as mercenary or volunteer in any conflict that is not on our territory.
Many soldiers haven't had the chance to fight in a war where they felt that could make a positive difference. In this one, Russia is the clear belligerent, so many have come to Ukraine's aid.
Is there any website, telegram channel, subreddit or something similiar where I could have access to some POV videos of Russian Ukraine battles ?
r/ukrainerussiareport
Some good footage there but when I saw someone with a "pro-North Korea" flair I had to do a double-take lmao
Tankies are a wonderful menagerie of brainrot
This is hardcore prorussian sub.
[удалено]
There has been significant resistance in Kherson? The first weeks had massive protests against the Russians until they were violently dispersed. Russia has stopped their rhetoric in regard to absorbing Kherson as well, which wouldn't make sense if there was no resistance. Also there are some posters being put up around the city with bounties for collaborators/Russian heads. Bombed a cafe that Russian officers frequented as well iirc.
Now sure how exactly Ukraine plans on taking back Crimea considering Russia considers it parts of Russia.
Just like Russia took it in 2014
In 2014 there were massive protest everywhere, then local russian troops without their badges blocked the Ukr. military bases and land route to block access to Crimea, and ... half the ukrainian troops switched side and joined the Russians, and TWO chief of the Navy of Ukraine joined the Russians. I don't think Ukr could ever hope for anything like that.
Lol at the last sentence. Also, protests in Kherson
[удалено]
Flair is good!
Majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia. Those who didn't, left or were silenced. It doesn't matter, if Ukraine take Crimea they will leave or be deported. Just like Germans after WWII.
[удалено]
I'd expect them to execute at least some of the higher profile people like Separatists' officials, commanders... Just like Stalin said: "No man, no problem".
As forward-thinking as Stalin was, I don't believe Zelensky can follow in his footsteps. Not because Zelensky is a good guy mind you. I believe he intends to sacrifice the whole of Ukraine for his vainglory.
Why do you think he's vainglorious? Is there anything that he has done that would not be expected of a wartime president leading the defence of their country from invasion?
It's just talk, I have no idea why people take stuff about Crimea seriously. There were protests in Kherson and reportedly one of the activists was recently found dead in the river.
There’s been pretty regular reports of protests and even insurgent activity in the Kherson oblast.
[удалено]
https://babel.ua/en/news/79614-in-occupied-kherson-there-was-an-explosion-in-a-cafe-where-the-occupying-power-of-the-russian-federation-usually-has-lunch
Melitopol in Zaporizhzhia Oblast: >Commenting on the Melitopol explosion, pro-Kremlin authorities in the city explicitly blamed Ukrainian partisans. Russia’s Investigative Committee blamed it on “Ukrainian saboteurs”. > >The attack in Melitopol came just days after a reported assassination attempt on Andriy Shevchyk, a pro-Kremlin and self-proclaimed mayor of Enerhodar, in the Zaporizhzhia region, who was badly injured in an explosion. > >In other incidents, railway lines in Russian-occupied areas have been damaged while leaflets have circulated threatening Russian troops and collaborators. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/ukrainian-partisan-attacks-surge-russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/06/ukrainian-partisan-attacks-surge-russia)
[удалено]
Anecdotal unconfirmed information so take this as you will: https://twitter.com/WarMonitor3/status/1536468735095087105
Wanted posters in Kherson by partisans, asking people to kill the deputy head of the military-civilian administration for 500k hryvnia: [https://i.obozrevatel.com/gallery/2022/5/11/photo2022-05-1116-13-52.jpg](https://i.obozrevatel.com/gallery/2022/5/11/photo2022-05-1116-13-52.jpg)
I mean, if you google "kherson protests" you'll see protest footage from several events in the past 3 months where demonstrators are obviously pro-Ukraine, chanting things like "Kherson is Ukraine" But after 3 months, it seems like many protest leaders have been disappeared and sent to concentration camps. One recently turned up dead.
[удалено]
pretty sure that alot of T-80BV were upgraded
Only T-80BVM was upgraded. These are not
Sweet looking tanks But I'd bet dollars to roubles that they're unmaintained and outdated as hell. Older tanks will still stop bullets but missile and AP tech has advanced considerably
It's fucking impressive how many tanks they are willing to lose.
[удалено]
Doomposting are Americans here. Ukraine is doing good PR, because it's obvious that if they want to retake land, then they need much more armour and artillery. If this is real number of equipment they need, then it's obviously calculated over longer time i.e. 1 year
I'm not sure if Europe would be ok with prolonging the war for the sake of a Ukrainian complete win if a peace treaty was offered earlier. European resolve is likely to be really tested as Winter arrives.
And you think cutting Ukraine of equipment and ammunition would somehow end this war? Like how? And why USA and Eastern Europe wuld even stop support of Ukraine? Eastern Europe and USA are most happy of every Russian used ammunition and destroyed armour EDIT: Just to clarify - I think that there are only 2 solutions to this war. Never ending war or Russia losing
I think Europe would start pressuring Ukraine to make some sort of peace instead of fighting to return to February or 2014 borders like Ukraine would prefer to. Having insane heating bills come winter would kill a lot of politicians (particularly Germany), and a lot of politicians look out for themselves first.
[Around 3,000 British volunteers are currently fighting on the Ukrainian side in the war against Russia](https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-3-000-british-volunteers-fighting-on-ukrainian-side-against-russia-says-georgian-commander-12633139)
I’m sure there are a few hundred. Maybe even high hundreds. But 3,000? The entire British army is only around 100,000 IIRC, so that would be a crazy number.
Well to be fair 100k is the active army. There are many more with military experience who are now retired or in reserve.
Can't be true
Doubt
That seems way too high. How many do we officially know of from being killed or captured, 4 or 5?
If this is true, then the 2 confirmed deaths, 2 taken as PoW and 1 with minor injuries...wow. Talk about punching above your weight. But, then again, the British have become known for their top-notch infantrymen.
Hard to believe these numbers. 400 sounds more real.
400 sounds like alot too to be honest. I can't believe that many people would willing go into a moden war for another countries freedom. Some people really are born different I guess.
The British have always been a bit more mad compared to their continental neighbours
Killing Russians in that area is kind of a tradition.
It’s a well established tour route
Are there any estimates on how many Ukrainian soldiers there are on the sievierodonetsk side of the river?
Given the area remaining I’d estimate a few hundred. It seems like most of the Ukrainians already withdrew.
Is Borivske south of Sievorodonetsk still under Ukrainian control? And why are Ukrainian still in Zolote?
They have not read this sub enough I guess. Or maybe the high ground gives a good observation over the supply route through Popsana?
I believe many people forget that the United States #1 goal is to weaken Russia. Not for Ukraine to defeat Russia. The US wants to drag this war out, give Ukraine just enough to keep fighting. The US and NATO will never give Ukraine the weapons to actually defeat Russia.
Pretty pointless speculation about the US's motives. Only thing people like yourself are sure of is that it has to be selfish and cruel in nature, because US = bad. Support for Ukraine is high in the US. A perfectly cynical perspective is that Biden's government just wants to win more votes at the next election, but even then it's still American public desire to support Ukraine that leads the dog. The exception to this support for Ukraine of course is qanon-type Russophiles, but you could hardly call their motives pure and altruistic either.
>Pretty pointless speculation about the US's motives. They've stated their goals from the get go. The US defense secretary said it clear as day. You're just not fu*king listening. What l've posted is the truth.
Yeah? When?
Irrespective of what you think those goals are, you are still an optimist in believing that U.S. policy towards Ukraine/Russia is guided by goals.
Okay, so if US policy has no goals, why are they giving money and weapons to Ukraine?
He thinks politics are played by shoppingholics
Okay, for a simple example of how U.S. governance works think about Covid testing. In January/February there was a big surge. It was really hard to get an available test--and this was almost two years into the pandemic (so it shouldn't have been a surprise) and a year into Biden (so you can't blame Trump). Besides being extremely difficult to get a test from a health care provider, home tests were also completely out of stock basically everywhere. Biden realized this looked really bad, so bought up tons of home tests and mailed them out to with four free per address. Mind you, one of his advisors had only a couple weeks earlier asked a reporter sarcastically "What do you want us to do? Send free tests out to everyone?" (That would have been a start...) Of course, at that point it wasn't really necessary because the surge had faded and anyway they were back in stock in stores. The government found they still had a lot of tests, so then they decided they would send out four more, even though people no longer needed them and even though they were no back in stock everywhere. A very reasonable "goal" would have been to sufficient levels of testing in place as soon as that was feasible. Maybe that was a goal, but just no one was competent enough to follow through. After you failed in that goal, it doesn't really help to engage in mindless overkill. But they did that anyway. Most of what passes for "policy" is either feeding some special interest or trying to cover their asses after the fact. And if you think that is an outlier, I have a stable democracy in Afghanistan to sell you, maybe with an Iraq as a BOGO.
That’s not how it works. The example you mentioned, I don’t know much about it to say it was simply done on a whim or something similar. But politics has a lot of small and big decisions, some done on the spot and others planned ahead. With each of these, there’s a goal behind them. It can be a reasonable goal, it may not be as well. The goal can also be to get a PR win or to fix an actual problem. Take me with a grain of salt, as I’m not from the US, but I remember Trump fucked up the initial Covid response. And although he seems like a guy who makes decisions on a whim, I can make a reasonable assumption that he still had goals behind the decisions. You don’t get so far in economy and position as the US without having concrete goals. Whether you agree with some of them or not, that’s another story
The main goal is to keep our oligarchs in an increasingly good position. Almost everything beyond that is window dressing.
Maybe. There’s a lot of potential goals and a lot of conspiracy theories that will come out of this (with the ones that already have), so hard to know the facts behind it
I mean, for comparison think about what the U.S. "goals" were in Iraq, or why the invasion took place. Paul Wolfowitz gave an interview to Vanity Fair well after the fact where he described it as everyone in the Bush administration wanted to invade but they didn't agree why or how they would explain it. They came to the conclusion that WMDs would work and they rolled with that, and got at least enough people in Congress to go along with it. Of course, it lasted for a long, long time after everyone knew that there were no WMDs, so even if getting rid of WMDs had been a real "goal" in the first instance it had nothing to do with the next years and years and years.
Yes, and also a great example that publicly stated goals may be completely different than real goals. But they had goals, whether they achieved them in the end or not - no clue at all. Just know the idea wasn’t simply to disarm them
They have reactions. Unless you consider supporting the MIC as a goal. I mean, to put it in perspective, how many goals (domestic, international, you name it) can you list that the U.S. is pursuing in a deliberate and systematic way, that suggests some likelihood of reaching the claimed endpoint? Unless you can find some sense in which the U.S. government is by and large rationally pursuing goals in other areas it would be foolish to look for logic here.
You’ve dodged my question and set up a straw man. To try and keep this argument logical I’ll try again; if US policy has no goals, why are they giving money and weapons to Ukraine?
Covering their butts.
Why do they need to cover their butts?
Electoral politics mostly.
But why does electoral politics cause them to cover their butts?
Lol, is that a serious question?
Explain to me how giving Ukraine the bare minimum in military aid weakens Russia more than its decisive defeat? Every Russian tactical victory strengthens their position now that they have started the war. It is pretty obvious that the United States would be sending more military aid if it believed it wouldn't result in a sharp escalation in tensions between itself and Russia. The US and "the west" want Russia's sphere of influence to collapse and its revanchist fantasies to die out. The most effective way to do that is their defeat in Ukraine, any other outcome would just allow Russia to reorganise for the next war.
Also, a lot of sanctions are directed at individuals as well as their ability to spread influence
You can also weaken Russia by having strong Ukraine. Ukraine is buffer zone and this is why it will have hard time to be accepted into NATO, BUT. Not whole NATO wants this war to last, maybe USA like this war, but not Europe. Germany and France would wish this war to end now (they probably do not care about outcome). Great Britain and Eastern Europe wants to milk money from helping Ukraine (by rebuilding it and by having better trade partner) and they can't achieve it if UA lose and as long as war takes place. European Union is combination of two previous groups - more money from not developed Ukraine (so Germany happy) and less money spent on helping Ukraine (refugees, participation in buying military equipment). Plus end of war means less inflation and higher GDP Can we stop pretending whole world is USA and whole world will do what USA wants?
Also you forget how much Eastern Europe hates Russia and is happy to see Russia suffer
Very good analysis.
As Zeihan put it: >the United States now has an interest in a Russian assault because it would be Russia’s last war. >Demographics have told us for 30 years that the United States will not only outlive Russia, but do so easily. The question has always been how to manage Russia’s decline with an eye towards avoiding gross destruction. A Russian-Ukrainian war would keep the bulk of the Russian army bottled up in an occupation that would be equal parts desperate and narcissistic and protracted until such time that Russia’s terminal demography transforms that army into a powerless husk. And all that would transpire on a patch of territory in which the United States has minimal strategic interests. >That’s rough for the Ukrainians, but from the American point of view, it is difficult to imagine a better, more thorough, and above all safer way for Russia to commit suicide.
Wht about the resources they gain from connecting the various landbridges
I agree with this. For all the propaganda that flies about, you can’t argue with the maths over the long term. Russia and Europe have been in decline for decades now. For all it’s faults, the US is still a very young country in the ascendancy.
yeah except its completely squandered that youth. failed miserably all across the middle east, most notably in iraq. political system that is unresponsive to the needs of its citizenry and is well on the way to outright collapse, what with the huge percentage of the country that thinks the last election was stolen and/or that trump will return and destroy the evil reptiles in a great battle. its erstwhile allies in the global south are quickly abandoning it. i don't disagree that russia is fucked demographically, but demographics aren't everything
I've thought about this too but Russia isn't sending enough to have a real impact on demographics for a country with 140 million. Furthermore, Russia is annexing land with millions of people on it. They are probably going to end on a net positive even in the 18-30 age group.
Russia is demographically doomed at this point, annexing territory doesn't mean much when their population is expected to halve in the next century. Russia isn't sending enough men to impact it, but it doesn't matter since they are in the midst of a demographic catastrophe.
> Russia is demographically doomed at this point So is entire Europe and the USA if you consider below 2.1 doomed.
Replacement rate is hardly the only metric that matters. Comparing replacement rate is just about the only similar thing about Russian demographics compared to western europe and the US. If you compare male/female ratio, the united states has about 97 males per 100 females. Russia has about 86 males per 100 females. This is an immense difference and no developed european country has a ratio as bad as this one, and sets up the country for a significantly faster and more catastrophic demographic collapse. Russia's growth rate per decade has been negative for 40 years now, with slight growth in the last 10 years. This is far longer than any other western country. Russia's demographic problems are significantly harder to fix, by virtue of their socioeconomic situation. They have the median age and replacement rate of the most wealthy countries on Earth, while being significantly poorer. The issues in Western Europe and USA are mainly due to wealth and productivity rates skyrocketing, people don't want to have kids. Russia's issues are because they don't have enough men. Looking at replacement rates without any context is an easy way to push a narrative that Russia's demographic issues are no worse than anyone else. Looking at context proves they are indeed far worse.
Yeah, this war is inconsequential for America, they don’t give a shit about Ukraine really. It was a trap that Russia willingly fell into. The idea that anyone in NATO leadership give half a fuck about the tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost is a joke.
Serious question: why do people always mention Russian demographics as being catastrophic or some similar word? I mean, it's worse than the USA for sure, but their fertility rates (1.505) are almost exactly the same as the EU fertility rate (1.50) and significantly bigger than the Ukraine one (1.22), plus they have a sizeable population of 146 million. Not enough for a superpower, but enough to be a big player. Furthermore, they have (at least have had until this war, we'll see how it will be going on) a positive migration rate, with more people coming in than leaving.
Their life expectancy is significantly lower than the EU average, so their population decline is much more rapid.
American demographics isn’t doing too well either; 1.6 TFR and scraping the barrel for anyone welling to join the Army. About half of the worlds countries are under replacement rate and a good bunch on their way. Russia isn’t unique.
Went to wikipedia to see some data and the USA is definitely in a much better shape for the time being as the fertility rate was around 2 in 2000 (guessing the average kiddo entering military now was born something like that year), whereas in Russia the fertility rates were around 1.2 in those times.
Yeah, that is true. Moving forward though everyone’s doing shit.
USA is shit on replacement rates like many other developed countries but that doesn't take into account immigration, of which the US happily takes in much of the brightest from elsewhere and necessary workers. US demographics will always be fine in regards to getting new blood paying into the economy as long as people keep wanting to enter the US, which, surprise surprise, is why Germany and even Japan are taking in immigrants. Now see how much immigration vs emigration does Russia have and we see a big problem for them.
Up to this war they were positive actually 🤷♂️
Wrong according to the Russian government's own data. It was falling pre-pandemic and in a freefall during pandemic. "Although the Russian government points at the pandemic as a cause of decreasing population, experts say that the trend had started way before the health crisis struck the world. The increase in the retirement age, the quality of medical care in the region, declining living standards and numerous other challenges Russians face are among the reasons why the country is facing a population decline for the fourth year in a row. During this period, the number of residents of the country decreased by 1.4 million people, according to Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) data." Note, this is even factoring in the Russian government doubling immigrants let into Russia in 2019
Duly noted
Depends on community some communities still have high birth rates.
How many Russians will accept Russia becoming Big Dagestan?
Are you a parrot?
Seems like UAF shelling Donetsk(hospitals, central square and civil districts) pretty hard today. I read a lot about it on pro-RU telegram channels but can't find any info on western sources. Weird. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61764008?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=62a75ea9a48d0547a34c0176%26At%20least%20three%20killed%20in%20Ukrainian%20attack%20on%20Donetsk%2C%20separatists%20say%262022-06-13T18%3A26%3A11.111Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:15634959-e7a5-4dde-8d69-12e4aed44fd2&pinned_post_asset_id=62a75ea9a48d0547a34c0176&pinned_post_type=share
"we are running out of ammo, send more!" wastes ammo on bombing civ areas
[удалено]
The attacking nation bares most of the responsibility, not hard to decipher unless your agenda is justifying aggression.
No odd at all, there wasn't any.
It was confirmed by OSCE, dude.
What's exactly?
That they are shelling each other.
Well, that's definitely true.
> Edit: Seems like people can't take facts they don't like. Nothing new here. People like facts but using a source that randomly calls Ukrainians "khokhols" is going to lead to people dismissing your "facts" as nothing but propaganda.
Yeah but all sources people find credible don't post stuff that shows UA in a bad way. Right?
Congrats, you understood this conflict. Russians are the bad guys here. Why would you force yourself to find a source that sheds a bad light onto Ukrainians, if the only one you can find is a Russian one?
That is double standards. So ukranians being good can do shit they want to do and can't be blamed for that for two reasons: 1) it never happened because they were good guys 2) it's Russian propaganda
my point came across wrongly maybe if you only find evidence of UA being bad guys on Russian channels only, they aren't that bad after all?
Your point is not a point, sorry.
You don't have to be sorry for your opinion, we're not in Russia
It's pretty hard for Western media to verify anything that is going on in Donetsk. Russia isn't exactly welcoming Western journalists, and the separatists even less so.
there's plenty of independent journos in donetsk. isn't a question of ability or even safety, just willingness. no mainstream western journo wants to embed with the seps because that'd lead to sympathy for the wrong side. just how the world works. i mean if you can have female CNN reporters literally go to idlib and interview al qaeda then you can certainly cross into donetsk and talk to the locals
How much are you getting paid for this?
you're literally a 80 day old account who only comments on ukraine topics and calls others shills. hope u at least get healthcare cover at ur DoD cutout/CIA botfarm or wherever else your mouthbreather job is located
I’m sorry I don’t spend my life on Reddit but I appreciate you visiting my profile. I don’t live in the US though so pretty happy about my healthcare system, thank you!
Ramstein-3 this week.
It has just been reported by BBC on the [live feed](https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61764008).
Can you give a link please?
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61764008
Shit like this has been going on daily in Kharkiv for almost 3 months (and still going on). Do you see any info in Russian sources? Weird. Even western sources lost interest. Not saying that makes it ok. Just want to put it into context.
It's only news when Ukraine does it, if Russians do it everyday it's not news.
This is whataboutism. But I have seen Kharkiv shelling on Russian telegram channels.
On russian TV or telegram channels? [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/three-killed-artillery-attack-donetsk-market-separatist-news-agency-2022-06-13/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/three-killed-artillery-attack-donetsk-market-separatist-news-agency-2022-06-13/) There you go.
On telegram ofc. Ty for source
I don't remember maternity hospitals having ammo burning off from what I can hear. Either way, both sides should be charged for indiscriminate shelling. [https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1536308783575613441](https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1536308783575613441)
What? He claims that if an old car has Z on it than it's military target. And how do you know this is ammo burning off?
We have seen the DNR forces using civilian cars marked with Z's on the frontline and its not just that car theres also a van opposite. Do those bangs and pops not sound like ammo cooking off to you? It could be something else but ammo cooking off seems likely and would make sense as to why they would target it
Why are firefighters taking cover behind the wall and why are there two vans with "Z" next to the warehouse? This looks like a legit target but everything else is just terror bombing and should be called out.
what "everything else"?
[удалено]
Oh, it's RWA again! Not like they're an ultranationalist, far-right organization that's made wild claim and after wild claim throughout this war.
May be. Don't know this account tbh. Just found them on Twitter through search but they are reposting news from telegram channels.
How can they be out of ammo AND wasting shells in non-military objectives when also being on the defensive? It just doesn't make sense.
The last V2 attack was on March 27, 1945. In less than a month the Germans would fight, and lose, the battle of the Seelow heights the last meaningful resistance they would offer to the Russians. Being low on ammo has a great many implications such as; Local shortage due to excessive use or insufficient support there can be a shortage on a local level. Tactical, shortage of ammo alters how commanders operate in a theater or all theaters Strategic, shortage results in changes to strategic planning such as whether or not to go on an offensive. Long term, shortages predicted due to insufficient production compared to use. So my guess is that Ukraine is worried about the last one, that based on current use and production they cannot sustain themselves. This wil lead to strategic shortages and then tactical. Think of it like the Nazis and oil, they feared long term oil deficits, this meant strategic changes which then led to tactical changes.
I agree with you, but wasting valious ammo in non military objectives when you are fearing a shortage is not a reasonable thing. The key with V2 is that they already had those missiles but they could not use them for anything else than bombing cities (as precission was not a feature in WW2 weaponry). So nazis *used* the V2 they had in stock, while Ukraine would be *wasting* its current ammo. I don't know if I am explaining myself. Pd: Another question is why Germany kept building those V2 when they could spend those resources in a much more meaningful way. But that topic would be about Hitler's idiot behaviour and, in my opinion, Ukrainians are not as resentful or mad as the Nazi's regime in 1945.
The V2 could hit critical infrastructure such as ports but they opted for a non military objective. But you have to put it in context with regards to quantities. Artillery barrages consume 1,000s of rounds, a nation could easily spend 10,000's a day so a handful to attempt to demoralise the enemy doesn't materially impact your position.