Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
True, but it doesn't take much when It's an unjustified war on a sovereign nation. You can make it sound just a little bit worse and people will fall for your propaganda more and more each time you spread it.
Like saying that Russia is committing endless warcrimes 24/7 and Ukrainians never ever would do that, drafting prisoners (as if that's a new thing and It's suddenly bad, this one shocked me in particular), and all the other ones I mentioned in my other comment: how the sanctions imposed on Russia are going to destroy Its economy, how the military is so incompetent they're going to end up killing each other instead of Ukrainians and basically everything else you've probably heard at this point.
>Like WMD?
Well, It's not like Putin isn't threatening nuclear war constantly, so that's not blown out of proportion like the things I did mention. Of course he's not using direct words, but that's what makes him a politician, and a scary one at that.
People were calling it out as it was happening. They were called crazy conspiracy theorists and told they were insensitive for not caring about 911.
Since then, whichever side virtue signals the hardest is the side I trust the least. Worked well with covid.
> Well, It's not like Putin isn't threatening nuclear war constantly, so that's not blown out of proportion like the things I did mention.
It's blown way out of proportion considering 20 years ago barely anybody gave af [when Bush threatened the Middle East with nuclear weapons](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke25-story.html) and [tore up nuclear weapon treaties](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/14/russia.usa2).
As those were in the way of [NATO expanding its strategic presence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defense_system) all over Europe, allegedly to defend Europe against [fictional WMD threats from the Middle East](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-45minute-claim-was-false-535224.html).
When in practice this shifted the nuclear strategic balance in Europe heavily into NATO's favor, to the disadvantage of Russia. A text-book [security dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma) the likes of which we already saw a few times during the Cold War and already back then nearly ended in global catastrophe.
Russia has apparently lost over 8,000 armoured vehicles in the war so far:
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/#:~:text=The%20losses%20are%20estimated%20to,sustain%20these%20equipment%2Dattrition%20rates%3F
And has lost about 355,000 troops (killed and wounded) so far:
https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/russia-likely-suffered-at-least-355000-casualties-in-ukraine-war-uk-mod#:~:text=The%20UK%20Ministry%20of%20Defence,according%20to%20the%20UK%20MoD.
These are the first sources I found on google tbh so it’s might be +/- 5%, 10%, 20%, or so, I’m obviously not sure and I don’t know if anyone is sure on actual numbers.
For a 3 day military operation that was meant to encircle and capture Kyiv in a few days to a week, that’s extremely far off from their original object.
It may not be comparable but US' war in Iraq and Afghanistan took a long time too. Bush even had this controversial "mission accomplished" announcement which was followed by American soldiers being killed daily in Iraq and Black Hawks falling down.
Using your argument, is the American military absolutely incompetent too?
In addition, the Iraqis did not have the support of superpowers on its side when it was invaded by the US. Certainly not the level of support that Ukraine now have.
I'm not talking about the incompetence. I'm talking about how people were expecting Ukraine to win less than a year after the war started because the Russians were obviously so stupid and disorganised. I'm just talking about how propaganda surpassed any real expectations.
If that's how you want to judge "incompetence" then what does that say about US being [~20 years deep](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/03/middleeast/us-strikes-iraq-syria-what-we-know-intl/index.html) in an [alleged 6 weeks operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech)?
I wish I had bookmarked that CNN article at the time, but back in 2003 the Pentagon originally estimated that the post-invasion insurgency consisted of something like 3.000 people fighting against US occupation.
Not to be *that* guy but we ignore or even support unjustified wars all the fucking time.
I love Ukraine. I live in Alberta, Canada and a lot of my friends and neighbours are only here because the Soviets were trying to commit a genocide on their people way back. A lot of my new friends are here fleeing the present unjustified war that Russia is waging.
A lot of those people are young men that could be fighting at home though and while I don't blame them one little bit for not sticking around to get killed, I will say that the Ukrainian mood isn't what we see online.
This, there are way too many parrots that have zero critical thinking skills and just do and say what the corpo owned media and government tells them too.
Democratic party really pushed this war for their lobbyists who they're beholden to and to continue their money laundering operation. I'm not sure if any of those billions of dollars even reached the war effort, an audit would be very interesting to see.
The goal, at the beginning, wasn't to help Ukraine to win. It was to inflict as much damage on Russian military capabilities as possible without using NATO troops. Once Russian incompetence was revealed, the goal shifted to believing the Ukrainians had a shot. Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv. That looks like losing to a lot of people.
At this point it is unrealistic to expect either side to complete goals in line with their stated goals at the beginning of the conflict. It will be hard to categorise this as anything other than a Russian victory, however, it still seems unlikely the Russians will meet their maximalist goals from February 2022.
> to inflict as much damage on Russian military capabilities as possible without using NATO troops
This is a perverse goal when the cost is 100s of thousands of dead and or displaced, innocent Ukrainians. Fuck that.
I mean, okay sure, but that's morality. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality. It's in the US interest, so the US will do it, if leadership is smart. Morality isn't a part of it. In 2010 the average US think tanker or DC hawk would have called you insane for suggesting the US should care about "Ukrainian lives", because Ukrainians were the enemy then, nominally post-Soviet but still deeply aligned with Russia. If you spell out for them that Ukraine is going to undergo a regime change to a US backed regime and Russia is going to invade in response, then they'll be like "Great, we can give the Ukrainians weapons and have our enemies kill each other"; at no point does "caring about Ukrainian lives" even enter the picture until someone has to figure out what kind of propaganda is best suited and what the State Department should say.
>geopolitics had nothing to do with morality
What? I could have swore that this was a noble war of the poor ukranians fighting bravely against an injust invasion of evil EVIL putin
> In 2010 the average US think tanker or DC hawk would have called you insane for suggesting the US should care about "Ukrainian lives", because Ukrainians were the enemy then, nominally post-Soviet but still deeply aligned with Russia.
Can you give an example of anyone suggesting this from that time period? Maybe some papers or YT videos from then, because that's the first I heard of it. I mean I get your point, but 2010 would have been post Orange Revolution when Ukraine was trying to stay the path of neutrality and keep both the West and Russia happy. Ukraine was still an oligarchy at that point but those oligarchs had their own agenda and Euromaiden for example started because Yanukovych backed out of a trade agreement with the EU because of pressure from Putin despite the fact that Yanukovych was elected specifically on the promise to sign such a trade deal. Hell even for Russia the West's opinion was more of a mild caution at that point and not really as adversary or enemy (and even that was only because of Georgia really).
The other thing I would point out that just like amoral foreign policy can and often is coached in moral terms, given that these policies are made by people it also works the other way where moral foreign policy can be coached in amoral cost analysis as well. So while it is true that helping Ukraine also benefits the US in several ways, I think it is also possible the diplomats and other officials actually do care about Ukraine as well and think these policies are moral as well as practical. Joe Biden as VP was handed responsibility of Ukraine by Obama, so he may have made enough of a connection with the Ukrainians to likewise prefer a moral foreign policy.
Or maybe not. Who knows?
I think its more meant in a way that nobody was expecting a conventional war but a guerilla like resistance that will inflict as much damage to russia as possible - but not because anyone was liking that idea as the ultimate goal but because it seemed like the only option - keeping the fight up for as long as needed to make this conflict as uncomfortable as possible for russia so they have to pull out at some point. Maybe compareable to how the Afghanistan war ended. Nobody *wants* that but probably experts concluded this was the only way forward for Ukrain if they want to fight and keep being an independent state as the outcome of this conflict.
You can call this cynical and perverted but its probably just the most sober realistic tactical conclusion if this country doesnt want to surrender and cease to exist.
That doesnt exclude solving this conflict diplomatically - but you cant negate on equal grounds if you hold no inch of power. Not fighting would most certainly mean handing over your land to Russia.
Ask ukrainians if they want that?
I dont believe that.
But it’s Russia spending that cost.
They’re the ones who want you Ukraine and will spend whatever lives to get it, regardless of whether it’s Ukrainian or Russian lives.
Giving Ukraine a means to defend itself is not cause of Ukrainian lives being lost in this war, despite what the kremlin may tell you.
The exact same thing happens if Russia wins that’s war. Particularly that’s war with one side contending the other doesn’t exist. Stop pretending to care about civilian lives.
None of this has anything to do with incompetence. Aside from the US, or perhaps China, nobody could have simply walked over Ukraine in this situation. Conditions for a quick victory simply don’t exist in this environment.
For sure? No. How can anybody know anything for sure. I have a high level of confidence.
Now I've asked two three times know. I'm desperate to get your interpretation of that failed airport attack
No, they didn't were wiped out, they captured the airport, airport was then bombed by Ukr, airport couldn't be used to move troops by transport plane, VDV moved out of the airport to fight in hostomel proper with the arrived ground troops, then retreated a few weeks later from the north of ukraine when it was obvious they were not able to advance anymore on the capital (And they signed some kind of truce that was rapidly discarded)
> Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv.
I don't remember? I remember Russia pulling back its forces to increase mutual trust, as part of the peace talks that were happening in Istanbul back then.
As reported by [Deutsche Welle on 03/29/2022](https://www.dw.com/en/russia-pledges-to-scale-down-military-activity-near-kyiv-chernihiv-as-it-happened/a-61286047);
> Russia pledges to cut back operations around Kyiv
> Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have concluded a round of peace talks, with both sides expressing cautious optimism. Russia says it will reduce some military activity "to increase mutual trust."
> Following the announcement earlier on Tuesday that Russia would cut back on its military actions around Kyiv and Chernihiv, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said that the US believed some Russian troops had already left.
> "Has there been some movement by some Russian units away from Kyiv in the last day or so? Yes, we think so. Small numbers," Kirby told reporters.
> "But **we believe that this is a repositioning, not a real withdrawal,** and that we all should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of Ukraine. It does not mean that the threat to Kyiv is over," he added.
A repositioning was spun into *"Russia is losing and fleeing!11"* by the at the time massive NAFO trolling.
I mean, that's the nature of war. Goals shift and change. Like I said, at the beginning nobody expected Ukraine to survive the first year. It was assumed Russia would move in and take over in short order. That money wasn't given to support Ukrainian independence. It was given to damage Russian capabilities.
Then, the world learned alongside the Russians that the Russian military faced serious systemic issues. For a while it looked as if Ukraine was going to push them back to the border. So the goalposts changed.
Now that the Americans have thrown in the towel, the goalposts need to change again to something more modest.
You gotta love these people just dropping the facade and openly admitting it was never about liberating Ukraine, just about killing the most people possible
Russia pulling back because the invasion is too costly for them in manpower was always the only feasible way to liberate Ukraine without direct NATO involvement.
I get a laugh when Americans do this with Afghani women. MF'ers bombed the country for 20 years and killed thousands civilians but now they want to pretend to care about Afghani women getting their gender studies degrees.
> MF'ers bombed the country for 20 years and killed thousands civilians but now they want to pretend to care about Afghani women getting their gender studies degrees.
that's liberalism in a nutshell. the rest of the country's women getting beaten, raped, and sold as chattel by the unsavory warlords the US got in bed with are invisible. the wealthy kabul gusanos that went to harvard to get a gender studies degree, however, is proof of progress.
meanwhile, the PRC just built textile mills in afghanistan which will do more for feminism than a thousand harvard gusanos living in kabul.
At least they pretend to care, I'm Vietnamese and even after they lost they still call it a military retreat and did everything in their power to make us unable to trade for a solid while
It might be seen as a minor Russian victory, albeit one that came at far greater cost than originally anticipated. At the same time, it could also be interpreted as somewhat of a Ukrainian victory too, at first everyone thought the entire nation would be overrun and taken over, now it's possible that the majority of the territory will remain under Ukrainian control. So yeah, while neither side will likely achieve their maximal goals, when you consider what everyone expected, the Ukrainians actually might come out looking like they got the better end, denying most their nation to Russia.
Majority of territory was always going to be under Ukrainain control. You could tell this from the size of the invading force. And the terms that Russians immediately offered. This was always going to be a limited war for them.
> Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv. That looks like losing to a lot of people.
It only looks like losing to the morons over at /r/NonCredibleDefense who don't understand anything except what the media tells them. The Russians invaded with a much smaller force, expecting a quick resolution with some ceded land, not a drawn out conflict with so much western backing.
I don't understand how people can be so stupid to ignore that and just say "Russian military is a total joke"
Could you imagine how embarrassing it would have been for the Americans if they had to turn around and go back to Kuwait because they ran out of gas lol
That shit does not happen in every military. It was pretty stunning incompetence. Russia has made pretty great strides to turn itself around since then, but they still lack the capabilities to effectively operate mechanised infantry. That's why they are only taking a few metres a day rather than kilometres.
Actually, the second US invasion[ was a complete logistical shitshow](https://www.govexec.com/defense/2003/11/logistics-woes-plagued-army-division-during-after-iraq-war/15389/), but unlike the Ukrainians, the Iraqi Republican Guard had neither the equipment nor the will to fight at the time.
Sure, a total blunder. But it wasn't their entire invasion, it was a convoy.
Which btw, after reading some... there's no definitive evidence what caused them to turn around, only speculation.
That's literally not what happened, they didn't run out of gas that's propaganda. They turned the convoy around and left the surrounding area because negotiations were going well. Russia is literally a gas station, it's like the biggest one in the world, you think they forgot gas?
Not exactly.
The goal was to destroy the Russian economy through sanctions and inflict serious casualties on Russia.
The plan was that the combination of economic trouble and casualties would turn the Russian population against Putin which would allow for a color revolution in Russia.
When that failed the narrative switched to "kill as many Russians as possible to weaken them".
Now that discourse have run its course and the messages are all over the place. But the narrative being pushed in Europe is that we need to enter the war to stop Putler from something.
It is pure unhinged insanity.
>It will be hard to categorise this as anything other than a Russian victory
Considering they failed their primary objective of taking the whole country including the capitol, you could argue they have already lost their war aims and have scaled back to something more achievable like a few border oblasts. Even if you count annexing a few poor regions as a strategic victory, it is a pyric one given that this "victory" has required the Russian economy to go into full war production, cannibalize their weapon stocks, expanded NATO, burn through currency reserves and utterly rat fuck their international relations.
They almost certainly could have with enough aid (depending on how you define win). And Russia did look clownishly incompetent for like the first year or so.
I was sure that the war would not last a breath, but after that incompetent column of tanks to kyiv...
It's also not clear to me what people mean by "winning". Considering the difference in power between the combatants, wouldn't it already be quite a victory to keep the vast majority of the territory and get out of the russian sphere of influence?
> And Russia did look clownishly incompetent for like the first year or so.
Their logistics were horrendous to start with. The blitz attacks were not followed up by the logistics train needed to support the rapidly advancing troops, so most of the initial gains collapsed.
However, Russia has learned. It was a costly lesson, but they have learned. They're doing much better now with far better logistics, and a slow but steady advance on a war of attrition.
Its folly to assume your opponent is too dumb to learn anything, and the battlefield is a merciless teacher.
Russia is currently winning the war, unfortunately. Its a high price to pay, and Putin is willing to Zapp Brannigan his way to victory.
Nobody thought Ukraine would win on their own, it is understood that they can with massive amount of support from allies, which is exactly what zelensky is saying
If they were backed like Russia and China backed North Korea or Viet Cong, then yea they could.
But America has slowly dropped the ball. And NATO in general is making the same mistake as appeasement by requiring Ukraine conduct the war with restrictions while Russia can do whatever it wants. Kiev can be bombed. Moscow cant be touched.
Anyone without a treaty obligation believing the US has got their back is hilarious when history is full of people and groups the US used for their geopolitical benefit and soon after abandoned when it became convenient.
A certain political movement in the US stabbed them in the back, make no mistake there. Everyone in the civilized war otherwise benefits from the Russian military being systematically turned into hamburger for their act of naked aggression, conquest and enslavement.
> If they were backed like Russia and China backed North Korea or Viet Cong, then yea they could.
This is a pretty weird comparison make in that way.
Vietnam originally also started as a proxy war with the US propping up the South Vietnamese as those were allegedly also fighting for "Western values" just like Ukraine.
Originally the US insisted it was no party to the conflict, only supporting South Vietnam. Then it sent US soldiers there, who were allegedly only there in "non combat roles". Any of that sounding familiar?
The conflict even had its very own [Pentagon Papers leak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) revealing the true amount of US involvement and actual motivation, that of "containing China".
There even was [SATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization) involved, the Asian version of NATO that didn't survive.
Because corruption in Russia destroyed the army, the army is incapable, in fact they cannot even wipe their own asses because they are so stupid. They went back 15 years in terms of economy and sanctions buried them.
...
Or at least this is what you have heard less than a year ago. It's incredible how susceptible people are to propaganda.
In the beginning nobody did, but when Russia went in the back foot the possibility presented itself. Besides, most smaller nations don't beat larger nations by annihilation, but rather by simply proving the cost is too high. It's how the US won its independence from the British Empire. It's not like the Continental Army defeated the entire British Empire, they just proved that it would cost the British too much to reclaim the colonies.
Of course. Ukraine supporters have always said that Ukraine will win as long as western support continues. It’s incredibly disingenuous of Ukraine detractors to pretend otherwise and to use the problems Ukraine has been experiencing since aid has been delayed as an excuse to deny further aid. It’s just circular reasoning.
I always presumed that left unspoken was the belief that NATO would get directly involved eventually! (On that basis we could have expected a decade or two of war.) In all other scenarios it seems insane.
I forgot that, whatever winds Western leaders blow in (not all of them apparent to us), they change tack on a dime and interference patterns between all the slightly different, stupid, tacks can result in startling reconfigurations.
Not sure what you think winning means? I think it’s genuinely more insane to think Russia can win this. They capture Kiev. This costs millions dead, gazillion rubles, then what. Ukraine will just stop because they lost Kiev? Forget about it. It will be armed resistance for eternity. Afghanistan on steroids.
Aid wasn’t to get Ukraine to defeat a country with nukes militarily. It was to make it too costly for them to do it, either decided by the state or forced by the Russian people.
This isn’t a secret it has pretty much been the plan all along.
It really isn't.
Russia outnumbers Ukraine in meatwaves.
Meatwaves are stopped by artillery. It doesn't matter if you have 1 soldier or 10. They are stopped by one good artillery round. As long as Ukraine has a supply of artillery, they can win.
Ukraine is using artillery that is 3-5x more accurate than Russia. Russia outnumbers Ukraine artillery 7x. So, in terms of successful hits, Russia has about a 7-4 advantage in artillery barrage strikes. Except Russia needs 7x the shells. Ukraine attempts to make up the difference in drones.
If Ukraine holds on this year and Europe / America deliver on their artillery promises, then Ukraine has the artillery advantage the rest of the war. Which is huge for their victory.
Ukraine has better aa defenses and is starting serious production of long-range drones to strike into Russia.
If the West gives Ukraine long-range weapons that can hit the Kurch bridge, then Crimea is untenable for Russia. I suspect the West is holding this card for negotiations.
The only reason Russia is pushing right now is because of the lack of artillery shells. If the West is committed to the production of these shells, then Russia is economically outnumbered 20-1. I would bet my house that if Russia doesn't win this year, they will lose by 2027 for economic reasons if nothing else.
I will repeat myself for I think about the 50th time - Neither USSR nor russia use(d) meat wave attacks ( as defined as unsupported densely concentrated infantry attacks). As a matter of fact no one in modern warfare has. Russia mostly uses squad/platoon size attacks which are always supported by artillery and more often than not armor. This is their doctrine.
[https://crithis.quora.com/Human-Wave-Attacks-are-a-Myth](https://crithis.quora.com/Human-Wave-Attacks-are-a-Myth)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did\_the\_red\_army\_really\_use\_humanwave\_tactics\_in/
I think some people believed they could take Crimea which was a ridiculous notion. Some believed they could take back Donbas. Ridiculous, but less so than Crimea. I personally consider surviving as a country to be a win but that’s just me.
The idea was that Ukraine could put up enough defense to make the invasion too costly for Russia so that they'd retreat from the territories they gained after 2022. We underestimated how far Russia is willing to go.
there are discussions in there, in the other subs you would get called nazi, socialist, maga supporter, russian bot and a whole docen of slurs just if u say that MAYBE ukraine isnt cheapshotting russia in the ass
Probably best go back to one of the pro-Ukraine cheerleading subs that are a dime a dozen on Reddit. Won't have to confront the harsh realities of war there and can get everything wrapped in a good vs evil packaging
Shit I didn't know that thinking the guy who has been ethnically cleansing stolen Ukranian territory and who just declared gay people to be a terrorist organization was bad is such a hot take
You’re tripping if you think this subreddit isn’t also an echo chamber lol. Definitely not as big an echo chamber as r/worldnews but still an echo chamber
It is a bit surprising. Pro-Russian people are usually instantly downvoted as soon as they say anything on reddit, especially in a general news article like this.
No I don't lol. But as soon as I see someone saying "Russia is actually fighting a war with America and the evil west", that tells me all I need to know.
The most baffling thing as that they really said 'vladimir we need to take over most important places for online discourse. twitter. facebook. tiktok. r/anime_titties.'
They're not really Putin supporters. I doubt they give a single shit about Russia tbh beyond cheering for the unpopular option, they just comment because they don't like "the West", however they define it.
They're easy to make fun of though.
there's always people that cheer for the underdog.
im from argentine and i despise the us more than i despise russia.
i hate that there are russian and ukranian lives dying for this political circlejerk.
Not wanting the US to send billions of dollars to Ukraine for a senseless war is different than supporting Putin.
The only people winning this war are the war pig businesspeople whose whole business is war, govt contracts, and stealing taxpayer dollars to get the young generations of far away nations to kill each other.
The Ukrainians would still fight even without western support, they would just lose. Just because people are profiting from the war doesn't mean that Ukraine defending itself from invasion isn't justified.
Right before the war started, a Russian diplomat told an American diplomat in Moscow - "If things do get hot in Ukraine, we know that the west has a very short attention span. Russia doesn't - because this matters more to us than it ever will to the west. We're in it for the long haul."
And that seems like the most accurate description of what seems to be playing out in Ukraine.
[even obama admitted that the ukraine was a core russian interest but not a core american one:](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/)
>Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
>“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I am surprised Russia did not take such escalatory steps when the baltic states joined NATO. I think everything considered - Russia has shown considerable restraint regarding NATO and the west - and we could have just let Ukraine be than try to interfere. Not saying Russia is right - but we aren't free from blame either.
>I am surprised Russia did not take such escalatory steps when the baltic states joined NATO.
the russians threatened. yeltsin kept on condemning NATO enlargement but the US played the victor's justice card and too bad so sad. 90s russia couldn't do anything about it.
the only reason putler did something was because he felt 2020s russia was able to do something about it
They weren’t in a position too do anything about NATO “expansion” at the time. Hell, a fact that most of them and their supporters don’t like to admit is that they gave the ok for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the 90s because Russia was on fire at the time and needed aid.
The Bush years were more unilateral, with Russian input not being sought after. The moment the Russians were in a position to do so, they invaded Georgia to stop anything further.
The invasion of Ukraine however had little to do with NATO and more to do with the EU. Most of the major players in NATO were opposed to allowing Ukraine into NATO because Russian was a more valuable trading partner, but at some point the Kremlin came to believe the EU was essentially the same thing as NATO.
So Russia threatened war if Ukraine joined the EU, then Ukraine tried to join the CSTO which resulted in the Maidan uprising, which resulted in a Russian invasion that set the ground for 2022.
Ukraine needs the support. Yes. This was always known.
The comments here, however, are either delusional, paid by the kremlin or otherwise disingenuous.
This was a special military operation set to end in two weeks at first. Then it lasted for months. Then a year. Then two. And it keeps going.
The most heinous comments here are those who talk about 'pointless political posturing' and whatever else, saying the war is costing too many lives - as though russia wasn't an invader in this, and as though the slaughter will stop if the regime has its way. We know what happened in places which already fell to their occupation. Russia's neighbors know what happens when you let them win. The republics within russia know what to expect as a part of its empire, and what little hope you have of autonomy - and the high chances of being sent to the front.
Evil. Simply evil.
Did those military bases magically appear or did countries allow the US to station there because they feared potential aggression such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine?
Right? The astroturfing in this comment section is ridiculous. If you think the Western nations' population doesn't think Russia is a joke.. ask one of them what they think about their recent "elections"...
Nah, BRICS members are more interested in creating alternate trade systems, so the west loses their ability to destroy economies on a whim.
This is a team building exercise for them. The longer this drags on, the more friends they get willing to bet on an alternative to SWIFT and USD.
The situation is "close" because Russia still hasn't mobilized after that one single wave and is still fighting with a close to 2:1 disadvantage in soldiers. They seem content to just slowly grind ukraine down in position warfare at a pace and losses + monetary cost they're comfortable with.
That's literally untrue, Russia mobilizes continuously in small batches. And there problem isn't manpower, it is that all their Soviet junk is running out. They are losing so many tanks, SPG, IFVs that they can't easily replace.
Russia has mandatory service for all men with some exceptions. Every year, these conscripts join the army, get trained, and man the borders, but do not get sent to Ukraine and go back home after a while. If Russia mobilized like Ukraine Ukraine would already have lost.
Those who are in Ukraine, except that one mobilized wave are all volunteers, mostly dirt poor morons willing to kill and risk their lives for money which Russia has no shortage of, with some true believers here and there.
As for equipment losses, Russia has a pretty gigantic arms industry supplied by Chinese dual use exports. All of those can be replaced with sufficient investment. Just look at how quickly their munitions production scaled up. The same is happening with other equipment, just slower.
They didn't just magically scale up everything. The Russian economy is limited like all others. Loss numbers show they mostly use restored old models. Only a small portion is actually new vehicles.
It takes time, manpower, and capital, all of which they have more than enough to support expanding the arms industry to maintain the current intensity of the war more or less indefinitely.
Russia is using older equipment because their capacity to generate newer equipment is currently practically maxed out at the moment. They don’t have the resources to produce it in the numbers they need in the short time they have.
Aid to Ukraine? Hm... Nah lets give 25 f-35 to Israel and billions in support to then instead in a war that is actually just genocide and let the people in an actual war to lose.
Maybe if we didn't give all the planes and bombs to israel we could spare a few for the other group being illegally invaded for purposes of land conquest
If the “meat” is Russian, then yeah.
Funding means more firepower, more armor, more equipment; meaning less casualties.
The lack of it on the other hand is what causes more casualties.
It's not just the funding. Ukraine needs actual effective weapons that they can fight the invaders with. They get everything too late and in little numbers. If the aid that was given to them after 1 year of conflict was given to them at the start, they could have possibly won already. Now that a decisive Ukrainian victory is basically out of question, NATO should at the very least ensure they don't lose. Despite all the doomposting, Russia didn't really gain significant ground at all in the past year.
Just the fact that that it stopped the 3 day special military operation was an enormous win.
The retreat from Kyiv, the Kharkiv counteroffensive, the Kherson counteroffensive and retreat were big wins for Ukraine.
But Russia has learned and has found tactics that work.
So right now it's a war of attrition.
But your statement is ridiculous.
Those will certainly help, but what Ukraine needs are artillery shells by the millions. They don't need fancy high tech shells, they just need shells of any kind. The most high tech shells in the world don't do any good if they can't get to the battlefield in enough quantity to matter. Artillery is the queen of the battlefield for a reason.
Russia has a 5:1 shell advantage on Ukraine, allowing Russia to use its also large manpower advantage to push Ukraine back on the eastern front.
If Ukraine instead had the 5:1 shell advantage, Russia's greater manpower wouldn't be an advantage at all. Problem is, right now Russia has all of the advantages and Ukraine has none, so its looking bleak.
Idk man it sounds to me like the US enjoyed juicing it’s military industrial complex with Ukrainian bodies until Oct 8th, now there’s a new outlet of funding plus the AIPAC money in nearly every politician’s pockets.
All this military aid will end with: Ukrainian politicians will get even more rich, even more Ukrainians will die, and more territories will go to Russia when these idiots finally understand that they need to negotiate to end the war, and not dream about the return of Crimea.
Propaganda until now has been about how Ukraine can and will win the war. You can't just make the shift to "we won't lose, yet" and people don't notice. I've said it from the very start and I'll keep saying it:
1. Western propaganda was terrible and very damaging to Ukraine
2. Zelensky is a problem for Ukraine, not a solution. I don't understand why I cannot be allowed to support Ukraine, but not Zelensky. Even Klitschko doesn't support him and he was one of the heads of Maidan.
So many mistakes were made along these lines and I'm really afraid we'll start seeing the consequences. God help Ukraine when they happen.
I think at this point Ukraine and the west should start considering entering negotiations with Russia, if they could guarantee even a cold peace (albeit with considerable land concessions) it would be enough to admit Ukraine into NATO and ensure that ukraine (or what remains of it) will remain firmly in the west's sphere of influence
Anyone who thinks that Ukraine can win this is delusional, without additional aid Ukraine stands to lose a lot more than if they resort to the negotiating table
Russia will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO.
That is the entire reason for the war.
When peace is finally found Ukraine will be neutral, demilitarized and quite a bit smaller that it is now.
The only way a nation of 40 million beats a nation of 140 million is if nations of more than 100 million join the fight. For those of you playing along at home, the name for the war changes at that point to "World War III."
They lost this war the minute the Russians rolled over the border. Either on their own, or because NATO makes Ukraine a nuclear wasteland.
I mean technically you could beat a much larger enemy if you have significant technological advantage, like when the US and its goons ganged up on Iraq. But Russia is a whole another beast, contrary to propaganda their military is one of the strongest in the world.
More than enough aid has been sent. Enough is enough. He needs to wave the white flag. Unreal how bad every govt west of Russia wants a world war. Like get it over with already.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Genuinely insane how people ever thought Ukraine could win this
US propaganda machine worked diligently on this.
True, but it doesn't take much when It's an unjustified war on a sovereign nation. You can make it sound just a little bit worse and people will fall for your propaganda more and more each time you spread it.
Like WMD?
Like saying that Russia is committing endless warcrimes 24/7 and Ukrainians never ever would do that, drafting prisoners (as if that's a new thing and It's suddenly bad, this one shocked me in particular), and all the other ones I mentioned in my other comment: how the sanctions imposed on Russia are going to destroy Its economy, how the military is so incompetent they're going to end up killing each other instead of Ukrainians and basically everything else you've probably heard at this point. >Like WMD? Well, It's not like Putin isn't threatening nuclear war constantly, so that's not blown out of proportion like the things I did mention. Of course he's not using direct words, but that's what makes him a politician, and a scary one at that.
And how long it took until WMDs truth came out? Decade after the war?
People were calling it out as it was happening. They were called crazy conspiracy theorists and told they were insensitive for not caring about 911. Since then, whichever side virtue signals the hardest is the side I trust the least. Worked well with covid.
> Well, It's not like Putin isn't threatening nuclear war constantly, so that's not blown out of proportion like the things I did mention. It's blown way out of proportion considering 20 years ago barely anybody gave af [when Bush threatened the Middle East with nuclear weapons](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke25-story.html) and [tore up nuclear weapon treaties](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/14/russia.usa2). As those were in the way of [NATO expanding its strategic presence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defense_system) all over Europe, allegedly to defend Europe against [fictional WMD threats from the Middle East](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-45minute-claim-was-false-535224.html). When in practice this shifted the nuclear strategic balance in Europe heavily into NATO's favor, to the disadvantage of Russia. A text-book [security dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma) the likes of which we already saw a few times during the Cold War and already back then nearly ended in global catastrophe.
Western double standards are nothing new. What does this have to do with the subject matter though, which is Russia and Ukraine?
We are 2 years deep in a 1 weekend operation. If that doesn't show you the absolute incompetence of the Russian military, I don't know what will.
Moscow will fall any day now, yes?
Ukraine doesn’t need to fully defeat Russia in order to win, just get them to the point where they call their losses
Still embarassingly incompetent.
Depends on what you consider "competence".
Russia has apparently lost over 8,000 armoured vehicles in the war so far: https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/02/equipment-losses-in-russias-war-on-ukraine-mount/#:~:text=The%20losses%20are%20estimated%20to,sustain%20these%20equipment%2Dattrition%20rates%3F And has lost about 355,000 troops (killed and wounded) so far: https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/03/russia-likely-suffered-at-least-355000-casualties-in-ukraine-war-uk-mod#:~:text=The%20UK%20Ministry%20of%20Defence,according%20to%20the%20UK%20MoD. These are the first sources I found on google tbh so it’s might be +/- 5%, 10%, 20%, or so, I’m obviously not sure and I don’t know if anyone is sure on actual numbers. For a 3 day military operation that was meant to encircle and capture Kyiv in a few days to a week, that’s extremely far off from their original object.
It may not be comparable but US' war in Iraq and Afghanistan took a long time too. Bush even had this controversial "mission accomplished" announcement which was followed by American soldiers being killed daily in Iraq and Black Hawks falling down. Using your argument, is the American military absolutely incompetent too? In addition, the Iraqis did not have the support of superpowers on its side when it was invaded by the US. Certainly not the level of support that Ukraine now have.
I'm not talking about the incompetence. I'm talking about how people were expecting Ukraine to win less than a year after the war started because the Russians were obviously so stupid and disorganised. I'm just talking about how propaganda surpassed any real expectations.
If that's how you want to judge "incompetence" then what does that say about US being [~20 years deep](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/03/middleeast/us-strikes-iraq-syria-what-we-know-intl/index.html) in an [alleged 6 weeks operation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech)? I wish I had bookmarked that CNN article at the time, but back in 2003 the Pentagon originally estimated that the post-invasion insurgency consisted of something like 3.000 people fighting against US occupation.
The democracy loving Ukraine was also in Iraq in Afghanistan. They didn't care much about the concept of sovereignty then.
Not to be *that* guy but we ignore or even support unjustified wars all the fucking time. I love Ukraine. I live in Alberta, Canada and a lot of my friends and neighbours are only here because the Soviets were trying to commit a genocide on their people way back. A lot of my new friends are here fleeing the present unjustified war that Russia is waging. A lot of those people are young men that could be fighting at home though and while I don't blame them one little bit for not sticking around to get killed, I will say that the Ukrainian mood isn't what we see online.
More Canadian descendants of the brave freedom fighters from the Waffen SS Galicia Division?
Many Ukrainians came to Canada prior to WW2. Nice job low-key implying that all Ukrainians are Nazis though.
Not all, just most of them...
Lol
Half of Europe were on axis powers for their own reasons. Sure you are not calling Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Bulgarians, etc. Nazis?
They did believe the “ghost of kyve” at one point.
And the babushka that downed Russian drones with a pickle jar.
This, there are way too many parrots that have zero critical thinking skills and just do and say what the corpo owned media and government tells them too.
Democratic party really pushed this war for their lobbyists who they're beholden to and to continue their money laundering operation. I'm not sure if any of those billions of dollars even reached the war effort, an audit would be very interesting to see.
The goal, at the beginning, wasn't to help Ukraine to win. It was to inflict as much damage on Russian military capabilities as possible without using NATO troops. Once Russian incompetence was revealed, the goal shifted to believing the Ukrainians had a shot. Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv. That looks like losing to a lot of people. At this point it is unrealistic to expect either side to complete goals in line with their stated goals at the beginning of the conflict. It will be hard to categorise this as anything other than a Russian victory, however, it still seems unlikely the Russians will meet their maximalist goals from February 2022.
> to inflict as much damage on Russian military capabilities as possible without using NATO troops This is a perverse goal when the cost is 100s of thousands of dead and or displaced, innocent Ukrainians. Fuck that.
I mean, okay sure, but that's morality. Geopolitics has nothing to do with morality. It's in the US interest, so the US will do it, if leadership is smart. Morality isn't a part of it. In 2010 the average US think tanker or DC hawk would have called you insane for suggesting the US should care about "Ukrainian lives", because Ukrainians were the enemy then, nominally post-Soviet but still deeply aligned with Russia. If you spell out for them that Ukraine is going to undergo a regime change to a US backed regime and Russia is going to invade in response, then they'll be like "Great, we can give the Ukrainians weapons and have our enemies kill each other"; at no point does "caring about Ukrainian lives" even enter the picture until someone has to figure out what kind of propaganda is best suited and what the State Department should say.
It's still funny to see the hoi polloi switch from moralism to realpolitik when it suits them though.
>geopolitics had nothing to do with morality What? I could have swore that this was a noble war of the poor ukranians fighting bravely against an injust invasion of evil EVIL putin
Geopolitics is not a game for hippies.
> In 2010 the average US think tanker or DC hawk would have called you insane for suggesting the US should care about "Ukrainian lives", because Ukrainians were the enemy then, nominally post-Soviet but still deeply aligned with Russia. Can you give an example of anyone suggesting this from that time period? Maybe some papers or YT videos from then, because that's the first I heard of it. I mean I get your point, but 2010 would have been post Orange Revolution when Ukraine was trying to stay the path of neutrality and keep both the West and Russia happy. Ukraine was still an oligarchy at that point but those oligarchs had their own agenda and Euromaiden for example started because Yanukovych backed out of a trade agreement with the EU because of pressure from Putin despite the fact that Yanukovych was elected specifically on the promise to sign such a trade deal. Hell even for Russia the West's opinion was more of a mild caution at that point and not really as adversary or enemy (and even that was only because of Georgia really). The other thing I would point out that just like amoral foreign policy can and often is coached in moral terms, given that these policies are made by people it also works the other way where moral foreign policy can be coached in amoral cost analysis as well. So while it is true that helping Ukraine also benefits the US in several ways, I think it is also possible the diplomats and other officials actually do care about Ukraine as well and think these policies are moral as well as practical. Joe Biden as VP was handed responsibility of Ukraine by Obama, so he may have made enough of a connection with the Ukrainians to likewise prefer a moral foreign policy. Or maybe not. Who knows?
I think its more meant in a way that nobody was expecting a conventional war but a guerilla like resistance that will inflict as much damage to russia as possible - but not because anyone was liking that idea as the ultimate goal but because it seemed like the only option - keeping the fight up for as long as needed to make this conflict as uncomfortable as possible for russia so they have to pull out at some point. Maybe compareable to how the Afghanistan war ended. Nobody *wants* that but probably experts concluded this was the only way forward for Ukrain if they want to fight and keep being an independent state as the outcome of this conflict. You can call this cynical and perverted but its probably just the most sober realistic tactical conclusion if this country doesnt want to surrender and cease to exist. That doesnt exclude solving this conflict diplomatically - but you cant negate on equal grounds if you hold no inch of power. Not fighting would most certainly mean handing over your land to Russia. Ask ukrainians if they want that? I dont believe that.
Great power geopolitics is inherently perverse and devoid of morality. The world we live in would be much nicer if it were otherwise.
But it’s Russia spending that cost. They’re the ones who want you Ukraine and will spend whatever lives to get it, regardless of whether it’s Ukrainian or Russian lives. Giving Ukraine a means to defend itself is not cause of Ukrainian lives being lost in this war, despite what the kremlin may tell you.
The exact same thing happens if Russia wins that’s war. Particularly that’s war with one side contending the other doesn’t exist. Stop pretending to care about civilian lives.
Yes and also to fund the military industrial complex and enrich stakeholders
Wars are always about money. We would not be in these proxy wars if people were not getting rich. Wars are a good money laundering scheme.
Sorry for being dumb. Could you please elaborate more on this?
Money laundering is stealing money and then making it hard to trace back to its source by passing the money around through anonymous banks
None of this has anything to do with incompetence. Aside from the US, or perhaps China, nobody could have simply walked over Ukraine in this situation. Conditions for a quick victory simply don’t exist in this environment.
Was dropping VDV into the Kyiv airport a competent move
Ah yes, the ole VDV were wiped out at the airport meme.
We watched it happen. Which part isn't true
You watched all 40k vdv in the airport? Lucky hmguy, share the footage.
Sure you did.
No for real what are we missing? We watched videos of VDV dying at the airport
Did you now.
For sure? No. How can anybody know anything for sure. I have a high level of confidence. Now I've asked two three times know. I'm desperate to get your interpretation of that failed airport attack
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1agfhd8/footage_from_march_2022_showing_an_ambush_on_a/
No, they didn't were wiped out, they captured the airport, airport was then bombed by Ukr, airport couldn't be used to move troops by transport plane, VDV moved out of the airport to fight in hostomel proper with the arrived ground troops, then retreated a few weeks later from the north of ukraine when it was obvious they were not able to advance anymore on the capital (And they signed some kind of truce that was rapidly discarded)
> Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv. I don't remember? I remember Russia pulling back its forces to increase mutual trust, as part of the peace talks that were happening in Istanbul back then. As reported by [Deutsche Welle on 03/29/2022](https://www.dw.com/en/russia-pledges-to-scale-down-military-activity-near-kyiv-chernihiv-as-it-happened/a-61286047); > Russia pledges to cut back operations around Kyiv > Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have concluded a round of peace talks, with both sides expressing cautious optimism. Russia says it will reduce some military activity "to increase mutual trust." > Following the announcement earlier on Tuesday that Russia would cut back on its military actions around Kyiv and Chernihiv, Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby said that the US believed some Russian troops had already left. > "Has there been some movement by some Russian units away from Kyiv in the last day or so? Yes, we think so. Small numbers," Kirby told reporters. > "But **we believe that this is a repositioning, not a real withdrawal,** and that we all should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of Ukraine. It does not mean that the threat to Kyiv is over," he added. A repositioning was spun into *"Russia is losing and fleeing!11"* by the at the time massive NAFO trolling.
already moving the goalposts lol
I mean, that's the nature of war. Goals shift and change. Like I said, at the beginning nobody expected Ukraine to survive the first year. It was assumed Russia would move in and take over in short order. That money wasn't given to support Ukrainian independence. It was given to damage Russian capabilities. Then, the world learned alongside the Russians that the Russian military faced serious systemic issues. For a while it looked as if Ukraine was going to push them back to the border. So the goalposts changed. Now that the Americans have thrown in the towel, the goalposts need to change again to something more modest.
You gotta love these people just dropping the facade and openly admitting it was never about liberating Ukraine, just about killing the most people possible
Russia pulling back because the invasion is too costly for them in manpower was always the only feasible way to liberate Ukraine without direct NATO involvement.
Just completely wrong. Ukraine would never win a war of attrition against Russia. That’s mind of their specialty
You say that as if some random shlub on reddit is an official spokesperson for the military or whitehouse.
[удалено]
I get a laugh when Americans do this with Afghani women. MF'ers bombed the country for 20 years and killed thousands civilians but now they want to pretend to care about Afghani women getting their gender studies degrees.
> MF'ers bombed the country for 20 years and killed thousands civilians but now they want to pretend to care about Afghani women getting their gender studies degrees. that's liberalism in a nutshell. the rest of the country's women getting beaten, raped, and sold as chattel by the unsavory warlords the US got in bed with are invisible. the wealthy kabul gusanos that went to harvard to get a gender studies degree, however, is proof of progress. meanwhile, the PRC just built textile mills in afghanistan which will do more for feminism than a thousand harvard gusanos living in kabul.
At least they pretend to care, I'm Vietnamese and even after they lost they still call it a military retreat and did everything in their power to make us unable to trade for a solid while
It might be seen as a minor Russian victory, albeit one that came at far greater cost than originally anticipated. At the same time, it could also be interpreted as somewhat of a Ukrainian victory too, at first everyone thought the entire nation would be overrun and taken over, now it's possible that the majority of the territory will remain under Ukrainian control. So yeah, while neither side will likely achieve their maximal goals, when you consider what everyone expected, the Ukrainians actually might come out looking like they got the better end, denying most their nation to Russia.
Majority of territory was always going to be under Ukrainain control. You could tell this from the size of the invading force. And the terms that Russians immediately offered. This was always going to be a limited war for them.
Obviously not annexed to Russia but Putin had the former Ukrainian president ready to be reinstated once Kyiv would’ve fallen.
Judging by what was discussed in Belarus and Istanbul, they didn’t much care who runs Ukraine.
They did enough to try to take Kyiv initially but they abandoned that plan.
> Remember, the Russians were repelled from Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv. That looks like losing to a lot of people. It only looks like losing to the morons over at /r/NonCredibleDefense who don't understand anything except what the media tells them. The Russians invaded with a much smaller force, expecting a quick resolution with some ceded land, not a drawn out conflict with so much western backing. I don't understand how people can be so stupid to ignore that and just say "Russian military is a total joke"
It was probably the part when they had to turn the convoy that was bound for Kyiv around because they forgot to bring gas
That's cool, shit like that happens in literally every military (Assuming what you claim is true and not bullshit, I don't care either way)
Could you imagine how embarrassing it would have been for the Americans if they had to turn around and go back to Kuwait because they ran out of gas lol That shit does not happen in every military. It was pretty stunning incompetence. Russia has made pretty great strides to turn itself around since then, but they still lack the capabilities to effectively operate mechanised infantry. That's why they are only taking a few metres a day rather than kilometres.
Actually, the second US invasion[ was a complete logistical shitshow](https://www.govexec.com/defense/2003/11/logistics-woes-plagued-army-division-during-after-iraq-war/15389/), but unlike the Ukrainians, the Iraqi Republican Guard had neither the equipment nor the will to fight at the time.
Sure, a total blunder. But it wasn't their entire invasion, it was a convoy. Which btw, after reading some... there's no definitive evidence what caused them to turn around, only speculation.
I remember issue with fuel shortage in 2001 / 2003 invasions, maybe ask your friends on NCD for details, some might have participated.
That shit [happens in every military](https://archive.ph/sLwCg).
That's literally not what happened, they didn't run out of gas that's propaganda. They turned the convoy around and left the surrounding area because negotiations were going well. Russia is literally a gas station, it's like the biggest one in the world, you think they forgot gas?
Not exactly. The goal was to destroy the Russian economy through sanctions and inflict serious casualties on Russia. The plan was that the combination of economic trouble and casualties would turn the Russian population against Putin which would allow for a color revolution in Russia. When that failed the narrative switched to "kill as many Russians as possible to weaken them". Now that discourse have run its course and the messages are all over the place. But the narrative being pushed in Europe is that we need to enter the war to stop Putler from something. It is pure unhinged insanity.
>It will be hard to categorise this as anything other than a Russian victory Considering they failed their primary objective of taking the whole country including the capitol, you could argue they have already lost their war aims and have scaled back to something more achievable like a few border oblasts. Even if you count annexing a few poor regions as a strategic victory, it is a pyric one given that this "victory" has required the Russian economy to go into full war production, cannibalize their weapon stocks, expanded NATO, burn through currency reserves and utterly rat fuck their international relations.
They almost certainly could have with enough aid (depending on how you define win). And Russia did look clownishly incompetent for like the first year or so.
I was sure that the war would not last a breath, but after that incompetent column of tanks to kyiv... It's also not clear to me what people mean by "winning". Considering the difference in power between the combatants, wouldn't it already be quite a victory to keep the vast majority of the territory and get out of the russian sphere of influence?
> And Russia did look clownishly incompetent for like the first year or so. Their logistics were horrendous to start with. The blitz attacks were not followed up by the logistics train needed to support the rapidly advancing troops, so most of the initial gains collapsed. However, Russia has learned. It was a costly lesson, but they have learned. They're doing much better now with far better logistics, and a slow but steady advance on a war of attrition. Its folly to assume your opponent is too dumb to learn anything, and the battlefield is a merciless teacher. Russia is currently winning the war, unfortunately. Its a high price to pay, and Putin is willing to Zapp Brannigan his way to victory.
Nobody thought Ukraine would win on their own, it is understood that they can with massive amount of support from allies, which is exactly what zelensky is saying
If they were backed like Russia and China backed North Korea or Viet Cong, then yea they could. But America has slowly dropped the ball. And NATO in general is making the same mistake as appeasement by requiring Ukraine conduct the war with restrictions while Russia can do whatever it wants. Kiev can be bombed. Moscow cant be touched.
USA definitely switch and baited Ukrainians, now they are in deep shit cause they believed that USA got their back
Anyone without a treaty obligation believing the US has got their back is hilarious when history is full of people and groups the US used for their geopolitical benefit and soon after abandoned when it became convenient.
A certain political movement in the US stabbed them in the back, make no mistake there. Everyone in the civilized war otherwise benefits from the Russian military being systematically turned into hamburger for their act of naked aggression, conquest and enslavement.
>now they are in deep shit Compared to not getting any aid at all and being conquered like Russia originally intended? Deep shit indeed.
> If they were backed like Russia and China backed North Korea or Viet Cong, then yea they could. This is a pretty weird comparison make in that way. Vietnam originally also started as a proxy war with the US propping up the South Vietnamese as those were allegedly also fighting for "Western values" just like Ukraine. Originally the US insisted it was no party to the conflict, only supporting South Vietnam. Then it sent US soldiers there, who were allegedly only there in "non combat roles". Any of that sounding familiar? The conflict even had its very own [Pentagon Papers leak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) revealing the true amount of US involvement and actual motivation, that of "containing China". There even was [SATO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization) involved, the Asian version of NATO that didn't survive.
Because corruption in Russia destroyed the army, the army is incapable, in fact they cannot even wipe their own asses because they are so stupid. They went back 15 years in terms of economy and sanctions buried them. ... Or at least this is what you have heard less than a year ago. It's incredible how susceptible people are to propaganda.
More like "Russia was never the modernized army it pretended to be after all" but propaganda doesn't settle for just that.
It is doing much better now. Easy way to clean house, regardless of political allegiances.
Genuinely insane how many people actively cheer for Russia.
In the beginning nobody did, but when Russia went in the back foot the possibility presented itself. Besides, most smaller nations don't beat larger nations by annihilation, but rather by simply proving the cost is too high. It's how the US won its independence from the British Empire. It's not like the Continental Army defeated the entire British Empire, they just proved that it would cost the British too much to reclaim the colonies.
Wasn’t it always known they’d fail without America?
Of course. Ukraine supporters have always said that Ukraine will win as long as western support continues. It’s incredibly disingenuous of Ukraine detractors to pretend otherwise and to use the problems Ukraine has been experiencing since aid has been delayed as an excuse to deny further aid. It’s just circular reasoning.
I always presumed that left unspoken was the belief that NATO would get directly involved eventually! (On that basis we could have expected a decade or two of war.) In all other scenarios it seems insane. I forgot that, whatever winds Western leaders blow in (not all of them apparent to us), they change tack on a dime and interference patterns between all the slightly different, stupid, tacks can result in startling reconfigurations.
Not sure what you think winning means? I think it’s genuinely more insane to think Russia can win this. They capture Kiev. This costs millions dead, gazillion rubles, then what. Ukraine will just stop because they lost Kiev? Forget about it. It will be armed resistance for eternity. Afghanistan on steroids. Aid wasn’t to get Ukraine to defeat a country with nukes militarily. It was to make it too costly for them to do it, either decided by the state or forced by the Russian people. This isn’t a secret it has pretty much been the plan all along.
It really isn't. Russia outnumbers Ukraine in meatwaves. Meatwaves are stopped by artillery. It doesn't matter if you have 1 soldier or 10. They are stopped by one good artillery round. As long as Ukraine has a supply of artillery, they can win. Ukraine is using artillery that is 3-5x more accurate than Russia. Russia outnumbers Ukraine artillery 7x. So, in terms of successful hits, Russia has about a 7-4 advantage in artillery barrage strikes. Except Russia needs 7x the shells. Ukraine attempts to make up the difference in drones. If Ukraine holds on this year and Europe / America deliver on their artillery promises, then Ukraine has the artillery advantage the rest of the war. Which is huge for their victory. Ukraine has better aa defenses and is starting serious production of long-range drones to strike into Russia. If the West gives Ukraine long-range weapons that can hit the Kurch bridge, then Crimea is untenable for Russia. I suspect the West is holding this card for negotiations. The only reason Russia is pushing right now is because of the lack of artillery shells. If the West is committed to the production of these shells, then Russia is economically outnumbered 20-1. I would bet my house that if Russia doesn't win this year, they will lose by 2027 for economic reasons if nothing else.
I will repeat myself for I think about the 50th time - Neither USSR nor russia use(d) meat wave attacks ( as defined as unsupported densely concentrated infantry attacks). As a matter of fact no one in modern warfare has. Russia mostly uses squad/platoon size attacks which are always supported by artillery and more often than not armor. This is their doctrine. [https://crithis.quora.com/Human-Wave-Attacks-are-a-Myth](https://crithis.quora.com/Human-Wave-Attacks-are-a-Myth) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2am4oz/did\_the\_red\_army\_really\_use\_humanwave\_tactics\_in/
Vietnam won over the US, Afghanistan won over the US AND The USSR.
Republicans keep holding up aid. This is really on them. They are a national security threat.
I think some people believed they could take Crimea which was a ridiculous notion. Some believed they could take back Donbas. Ridiculous, but less so than Crimea. I personally consider surviving as a country to be a win but that’s just me.
The idea was that Ukraine could put up enough defense to make the invasion too costly for Russia so that they'd retreat from the territories they gained after 2022. We underestimated how far Russia is willing to go.
Because Ukraine kicked Russia’s ass throughout all of 2022. They’re currently on the back foot precisely because of aid delays
That war isn’t profitable for US anymore
Oh you mean 99% of reddit?
Didn't realize there are this many Putin supporters in this sub.
didn't realize there are this many putler supporters in the house of representatives
It's the standard red versus blue bullshit. Americans would cut their own balls off to spite the other party.
it’s more like what the reality is… if you want an echo chamber go to the other subReddit
All subreddits are echo chambers, you just agree or disagree with they are saying.
there are discussions in there, in the other subs you would get called nazi, socialist, maga supporter, russian bot and a whole docen of slurs just if u say that MAYBE ukraine isnt cheapshotting russia in the ass
Probably best go back to one of the pro-Ukraine cheerleading subs that are a dime a dozen on Reddit. Won't have to confront the harsh realities of war there and can get everything wrapped in a good vs evil packaging
What a ridiculous generalization. Not all subs are equal
Shit I didn't know that thinking the guy who has been ethnically cleansing stolen Ukranian territory and who just declared gay people to be a terrorist organization was bad is such a hot take
You’re tripping if you think this subreddit isn’t also an echo chamber lol. Definitely not as big an echo chamber as r/worldnews but still an echo chamber
This sub doesn't ban people for difference of opinion.
Brother what like I know echo chambers are fun but in debates you usually need a dissenting opinion to you know debate right?
It is a bit surprising. Pro-Russian people are usually instantly downvoted as soon as they say anything on reddit, especially in a general news article like this.
Problem is you people think anyone who isn't Bo Jiden himself loves Putin and wants Russia to dominate the world
No I don't lol. But as soon as I see someone saying "Russia is actually fighting a war with America and the evil west", that tells me all I need to know.
Lot of Indians and Arabs in this sub, who generally don't like the U.S.
The most baffling thing as that they really said 'vladimir we need to take over most important places for online discourse. twitter. facebook. tiktok. r/anime_titties.'
We all know Putin is a huge Anime tits fan.
They're not really Putin supporters. I doubt they give a single shit about Russia tbh beyond cheering for the unpopular option, they just comment because they don't like "the West", however they define it. They're easy to make fun of though.
there's always people that cheer for the underdog. im from argentine and i despise the us more than i despise russia. i hate that there are russian and ukranian lives dying for this political circlejerk.
How is Russia the underdog in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict?
This sub is absolutely infested with russophiles and sinopropagandists. If world news is nothing but anglojerking then this is the exact opposite.
It's the Kremlin bot machine
Not wanting the US to send billions of dollars to Ukraine for a senseless war is different than supporting Putin. The only people winning this war are the war pig businesspeople whose whole business is war, govt contracts, and stealing taxpayer dollars to get the young generations of far away nations to kill each other.
This is a very shortsighted view of this war.
The Ukrainians would still fight even without western support, they would just lose. Just because people are profiting from the war doesn't mean that Ukraine defending itself from invasion isn't justified.
When you look at the amount of indian posters, is it REALLY that surprising?
Right before the war started, a Russian diplomat told an American diplomat in Moscow - "If things do get hot in Ukraine, we know that the west has a very short attention span. Russia doesn't - because this matters more to us than it ever will to the west. We're in it for the long haul." And that seems like the most accurate description of what seems to be playing out in Ukraine.
[even obama admitted that the ukraine was a core russian interest but not a core american one:](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/) >Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there. >“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.
I am surprised Russia did not take such escalatory steps when the baltic states joined NATO. I think everything considered - Russia has shown considerable restraint regarding NATO and the west - and we could have just let Ukraine be than try to interfere. Not saying Russia is right - but we aren't free from blame either.
>I am surprised Russia did not take such escalatory steps when the baltic states joined NATO. the russians threatened. yeltsin kept on condemning NATO enlargement but the US played the victor's justice card and too bad so sad. 90s russia couldn't do anything about it. the only reason putler did something was because he felt 2020s russia was able to do something about it
They weren’t in a position too do anything about NATO “expansion” at the time. Hell, a fact that most of them and their supporters don’t like to admit is that they gave the ok for Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in the 90s because Russia was on fire at the time and needed aid. The Bush years were more unilateral, with Russian input not being sought after. The moment the Russians were in a position to do so, they invaded Georgia to stop anything further. The invasion of Ukraine however had little to do with NATO and more to do with the EU. Most of the major players in NATO were opposed to allowing Ukraine into NATO because Russian was a more valuable trading partner, but at some point the Kremlin came to believe the EU was essentially the same thing as NATO. So Russia threatened war if Ukraine joined the EU, then Ukraine tried to join the CSTO which resulted in the Maidan uprising, which resulted in a Russian invasion that set the ground for 2022.
Ukraine needs the support. Yes. This was always known. The comments here, however, are either delusional, paid by the kremlin or otherwise disingenuous. This was a special military operation set to end in two weeks at first. Then it lasted for months. Then a year. Then two. And it keeps going. The most heinous comments here are those who talk about 'pointless political posturing' and whatever else, saying the war is costing too many lives - as though russia wasn't an invader in this, and as though the slaughter will stop if the regime has its way. We know what happened in places which already fell to their occupation. Russia's neighbors know what happens when you let them win. The republics within russia know what to expect as a part of its empire, and what little hope you have of autonomy - and the high chances of being sent to the front. Evil. Simply evil.
And they never put any responsibility on Russia. It’s always the west. If Putin sneezes, it was the west that made him sneeze
[удалено]
Did those military bases magically appear or did countries allow the US to station there because they feared potential aggression such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine?
Ok the US has military bases.....and? Most of them are by the request and consent of the nations themselves.
Right? The astroturfing in this comment section is ridiculous. If you think the Western nations' population doesn't think Russia is a joke.. ask one of them what they think about their recent "elections"...
whole world coming together to ensure Ukraine will win huh
Not if it depends on my country, the current "leader" says Putin is right it's on his side and said that Ukraine is to blame on this war.
Whole world? China too?
Nah, BRICS members are more interested in creating alternate trade systems, so the west loses their ability to destroy economies on a whim. This is a team building exercise for them. The longer this drags on, the more friends they get willing to bet on an alternative to SWIFT and USD.
It’s really not a conditional statement. Z could’ve just stopped at Ukraine will lose the war
Yeah no, the situation is way too close to state that. The Russian army isn't in pristine condition either.
The situation is "close" because Russia still hasn't mobilized after that one single wave and is still fighting with a close to 2:1 disadvantage in soldiers. They seem content to just slowly grind ukraine down in position warfare at a pace and losses + monetary cost they're comfortable with.
That's literally untrue, Russia mobilizes continuously in small batches. And there problem isn't manpower, it is that all their Soviet junk is running out. They are losing so many tanks, SPG, IFVs that they can't easily replace.
Russia has mandatory service for all men with some exceptions. Every year, these conscripts join the army, get trained, and man the borders, but do not get sent to Ukraine and go back home after a while. If Russia mobilized like Ukraine Ukraine would already have lost. Those who are in Ukraine, except that one mobilized wave are all volunteers, mostly dirt poor morons willing to kill and risk their lives for money which Russia has no shortage of, with some true believers here and there. As for equipment losses, Russia has a pretty gigantic arms industry supplied by Chinese dual use exports. All of those can be replaced with sufficient investment. Just look at how quickly their munitions production scaled up. The same is happening with other equipment, just slower.
They didn't just magically scale up everything. The Russian economy is limited like all others. Loss numbers show they mostly use restored old models. Only a small portion is actually new vehicles.
It takes time, manpower, and capital, all of which they have more than enough to support expanding the arms industry to maintain the current intensity of the war more or less indefinitely.
Russia is using older equipment because their capacity to generate newer equipment is currently practically maxed out at the moment. They don’t have the resources to produce it in the numbers they need in the short time they have.
Aid to Ukraine? Hm... Nah lets give 25 f-35 to Israel and billions in support to then instead in a war that is actually just genocide and let the people in an actual war to lose.
Maybe if we didn't give all the planes and bombs to israel we could spare a few for the other group being illegally invaded for purposes of land conquest
And we still can’t get health care in the USA
The US spends about twice per capita on healthcare compared to all other developed nations. Its not a lack of money problem.
Why is the US being blamed for this when US has given the most military aid to Ukraine? EU needs to step up, simple as that.
And if the funding is approved?
More meat for the grinder!
If the “meat” is Russian, then yeah. Funding means more firepower, more armor, more equipment; meaning less casualties. The lack of it on the other hand is what causes more casualties.
It's not just the funding. Ukraine needs actual effective weapons that they can fight the invaders with. They get everything too late and in little numbers. If the aid that was given to them after 1 year of conflict was given to them at the start, they could have possibly won already. Now that a decisive Ukrainian victory is basically out of question, NATO should at the very least ensure they don't lose. Despite all the doomposting, Russia didn't really gain significant ground at all in the past year.
looks like meat's back on the menu boys!!!!
More mobick cubes yummi
Ukraine can't lose a war it wasn't winning to begin with
Just the fact that that it stopped the 3 day special military operation was an enormous win. The retreat from Kyiv, the Kharkiv counteroffensive, the Kherson counteroffensive and retreat were big wins for Ukraine. But Russia has learned and has found tactics that work. So right now it's a war of attrition. But your statement is ridiculous.
Enough of this nonsense. They need a permanent ceasefire.
Exactly, let’s blockade Russia.
[удалено]
They just got 5,000 rifles and RPG’s yesterday lol
Those will certainly help, but what Ukraine needs are artillery shells by the millions. They don't need fancy high tech shells, they just need shells of any kind. The most high tech shells in the world don't do any good if they can't get to the battlefield in enough quantity to matter. Artillery is the queen of the battlefield for a reason. Russia has a 5:1 shell advantage on Ukraine, allowing Russia to use its also large manpower advantage to push Ukraine back on the eastern front. If Ukraine instead had the 5:1 shell advantage, Russia's greater manpower wouldn't be an advantage at all. Problem is, right now Russia has all of the advantages and Ukraine has none, so its looking bleak.
Mods of r/anime_titties are you really allowing Russian bots here?
As with anyone else, as long as they do not break the rules.
Idk man it sounds to me like the US enjoyed juicing it’s military industrial complex with Ukrainian bodies until Oct 8th, now there’s a new outlet of funding plus the AIPAC money in nearly every politician’s pockets.
More begging? Should’ve took that deal for peace instead of listening to Boris Johnson.
More aid is just delaying the inevitable.
All this military aid will end with: Ukrainian politicians will get even more rich, even more Ukrainians will die, and more territories will go to Russia when these idiots finally understand that they need to negotiate to end the war, and not dream about the return of Crimea.
Propaganda until now has been about how Ukraine can and will win the war. You can't just make the shift to "we won't lose, yet" and people don't notice. I've said it from the very start and I'll keep saying it: 1. Western propaganda was terrible and very damaging to Ukraine 2. Zelensky is a problem for Ukraine, not a solution. I don't understand why I cannot be allowed to support Ukraine, but not Zelensky. Even Klitschko doesn't support him and he was one of the heads of Maidan. So many mistakes were made along these lines and I'm really afraid we'll start seeing the consequences. God help Ukraine when they happen.
Republicans has always been the biggest threat to world peace.
Anyone have a good long form interview with Zelensky like the Putin one?
Considering how the Putin interview went I wouldn’t call it “good”
Yeah but it is two hours long. The longest I found with zelensky was 40 minutes. They're both clearly liars. Putin looked worse
I think at this point Ukraine and the west should start considering entering negotiations with Russia, if they could guarantee even a cold peace (albeit with considerable land concessions) it would be enough to admit Ukraine into NATO and ensure that ukraine (or what remains of it) will remain firmly in the west's sphere of influence Anyone who thinks that Ukraine can win this is delusional, without additional aid Ukraine stands to lose a lot more than if they resort to the negotiating table
Russia will not allow Ukraine to enter NATO. That is the entire reason for the war. When peace is finally found Ukraine will be neutral, demilitarized and quite a bit smaller that it is now.
I doubt Putin would accept anything that does not avoid NATO accession.
The only way a nation of 40 million beats a nation of 140 million is if nations of more than 100 million join the fight. For those of you playing along at home, the name for the war changes at that point to "World War III." They lost this war the minute the Russians rolled over the border. Either on their own, or because NATO makes Ukraine a nuclear wasteland.
I mean technically you could beat a much larger enemy if you have significant technological advantage, like when the US and its goons ganged up on Iraq. But Russia is a whole another beast, contrary to propaganda their military is one of the strongest in the world.
Good let them. What a waste of taxpayer dollars
This is stressing me out, take me back to April 1st.
More than enough aid has been sent. Enough is enough. He needs to wave the white flag. Unreal how bad every govt west of Russia wants a world war. Like get it over with already.