178
Who's winning the war in Ukraine?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
178 points (88.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44183 readers
1154 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Winning was taking over the county at first. Then it was kherson, and donbass, crimea, and a few others. Now it's just like 3 areas. If you're hearing anything about winning it's because the goal posts are moving.
Youtuber Perun had some good high level takes on the war. It all boils down to Western support will win. As long as support keeps coming from the rest of the world, eventually Russia will run out of material. WW2 was won (not wholly, but in large part) due to the larger economy being on the allies side.
The absurd claims of Russia's goals are all from western propaganda. This is from the day of the invasion: https://www.rt.com/russia/550466-putin-ukraine-opeartion-goals/ What are their goals?
And then they clarify, denazification is optional. A general occupation of Ukraine is not their plan.
If there is more land they want to occupy, then occupying and holding it now doesn't actually further that goal. The only thing holding it now is good for is protecting the civilians or using it strategically, either industrially or for staging. Because if the country is successfully demilitarised, Ukraine won't be able to resist occupation, so that land can be taken later for cheaper. But they haven't outlined a goal of taking additional land. Crimea was already incorporated at the time, so that's an extra implied goal -- Don't lose Russian land.
Do provide us with sources where Russians stated these were the goals. Seems like it's western propagandists who've been making up goals for Russia and then moving the goal posts.
Do I need sources for the failed invasion of Kyiv?
Everyone knows about it.
Yeah, I need sources for the fantastical claim that Russia was trying to take Kyiv with 100k troops. It's a particularly interesting claim given that they allocated 40k troops to take Mariupol which is an order of magnitude smaller city. A far more plausible scenario is that Russia used 100k troops to fix a chunk of Ukrainian army around Kyiv while Russians took large parts of Ukrainian territory in the east which they still hold today.
The paratroopers in Kyiv's airport were just taking in the scenery. Really unfortunate that they were shot. And that 50 km tank column headed for Kyiv really was just lost on its way to Mariupol. Yep, exactly, that's what happened.
Lmao what a lame-ass trolling attempt, you have mush for brains if you think this is either effective propaganda or... funny?
The only one with mush for brains is the guy who thinks Russia would be trying to take Kyiv with 100k troops. The fact that you don't even understand why that's absurd makes it all the more hilarious.
We were here two years ago. Stop gaslighting.
You were lying two years ago just the same as you are now. Where are the sources?
gIvE mE sOuRCeS
so, what, you just make shit up then deflect when someone points that out?
Yeah, give me sources for the wild shit you keep making up here. The fact that this is your reaction when being confronted about your lies says all we need to know about you.
gIvE mE sOuRCeS
don't have any do you troll
gIvE mE sOuRCeS
gIvE mE sOuRCeS
keep screeching
Garbage NATO propaganda channel, about as reliable to give you an honest summary of what is happening as listening to the Ukrainian government itself.
On the Soviet's side*, 80% of Germany's casualties were in the Eastern Front.
During ww2 the involved parties and their allies were in wartime economy. This is the support that ukraine needs. I feel like today, the west is sending the military version of happy meal aid packages, once in a while, when it's politically convenient. Should we scale up manufacturing for wartime? Let's procrastinate.
Nah, the amount of aid and material they're sending is substantial, including modern tanks and artillery, as well as more mundane things like shells, bullets etc.
And they will keep doing it for as long as it takes.
The amount of people fighting back on supporting a sovereign democracy getting attacked by a oligarchical dictatorship is nuts.
Like we did appeasement in the 40s already, it was a bad strategy.
No no. It was a great strategy. Germany went to war. It was just that Germany also went to war with us, which wasn't what we wanted.
The West would like Ukraine to win, but it's more important to the West that the war drag on and be a drain on Russia's resources.
No it's not. The west has nothing to gain from it dragging on. Nobody wants it to drag on.
They have quite a lot to gain by it. Getting the other side stuck in a quagmire has been the preferred strategy for both sides in US vs. Russia for decades.
They would gain more by cooperation or ignoring.
It's just that you can't do that when the other party is actively destructive.
Doesn't make it a gain in my eyes. Labeling it a gain at least requires a contextualized qualification. So saying the EU is interested in prolonging the conflict is very disingenuous.
EU would have far more to gain ffrom Russia leaving Ukraine. Saying the EU wants to prolong the conflict for gains is disingenuous, at least misleading or ambiguous.
What the West gains is a diminished Russia less inclined to adventure. That's a big gain.
The most important goal in this situation for the West is to avoid war with Russia. Since Russia has the resources to wage the war for a long time as long as the West doesn't join it, then whether Ukraine wins is purely a Russian decision.
It sucks for Ukraine but a Russia tied down in Ukraine has less funds to meddle with the rest of the World.
It drains their military and their economy while Putin must be extra careful against coups. There has been one very famous coup attempt directly related to the war (Wagner Group) and who knows how many other smaller attempts have been stopped preemptively?
Very expensive way to drain Russia. Tbh following trends the best way to drain Russia was the status quo of letting Putin dictate it into obscurity through corruption.
But during the status quo, Putin had his hands free to finance destabilizing extremists, Internet troll armies and wage cyberwarfare on the West.
All while reflecting an image of strength.
This is some absolutely depraved shit. You're sitting here justifying levels of death and destruction and human misery that are beyond your comprehension just because of some made up conspiracy theories about Russia "meddling" with other countries. In what possible universe does that make you anything other than pure fucking evil?