Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said a ceasefire with Russia without reclaiming lost territories would only prolong the war, according to an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
Ukrainian army was at its peak when the war started. It’s been significantly reduced in capacity since, and the weapons that the west sends come nowhere close to replacing what was lost. If Ukraine couldn’t win with its original force, why would anybody expect it to win with a hodgepodge of western weapons and a decimated army. Even western publications are starting to grudgingly accept that there is no path towards Ukraine winning this war.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine continues to lose territory. The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and end up in an increasingly worse bargaining position.
There is no path towards Ukraine getting any territory back. They’re losing between 9 and 10k people a month, this is not sustainable for any army. Geopolitics isn’t about trust, it’s about finding compromises that everyone can live with. This is what people in the west can’t get through their skulls. The west is no longer in a position where it can dictate what happens globally, and unless the west relearns how to do diplomacy we’ll be seeing a lot more conflicts happening going forward.
Russia claims to have attacked military targets in the harbour, while the agreement only forbids attacks on grain transport infrastructure. If such infrastructure were attacked by Russia, Ukraine would have shared pictures of the damage within hours, but there is nothing.
I’ve already explained this to you pretty clearly above, but let’s go through it once again. When you are unable to dictate to other people, you must negotiate with them. This appears to be a really difficult concept for you to wrap your head around, so let’s break it down a bit.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
The situation in Ukraine has escalated to the point where Russia decided that conflict is preferable to whatever terms the west offers. They are also winning this conflict, and the west has shown itself to be impotent to reverse the course here.
The situation is a perfect illustration of why avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Before the war started, nobody knew what the relative strengths of Russia and the west were. It was entirely possible that the economic war could’ve crashed Russian economy as the west gambled, It was possible that the rest of the world would’ve lined up behind the west instead of Russia, and that Ukrainian military would’ve stopped Russian invasion.
All of these were possible scenarios, and this gave the west leverage over Russia to negotiate terms. In fact, Russia was willing to do just that for 8 years when they kept waiting for Minks protocols to be implemented. The west chose to ignore Russia’s concerns and to continue escalating to the point where Russia decided that they are willing to take the risk of an open conflict.
Now that the conflict happened there are a lot less hypotheticals on the table. Russia now knows that they are able to win militarily. They see that the sanctions failed to affect their economy significantly, and that the blow back in the west is far more severe. And finally, they see that majority of the world is either neutral or actively supporting them.
At this point any leverage that the west had over Russia has evaporated. Now, Russia will continue taking Ukraine apart until they decide to stop, and they will be dictating terms to the west because it’s know clear that there is no alternative to Russian energy in Europe.
Please explain how are you going to go forward with diplomacy if the invader here is not to be trusted in even deals and negotiations like this?
Like this. Two sides claim the whole territory. One of them is a neocolonial power (🇺🇲) who bombed 20% of the local population in what was essentially a genocidal campaign that that country (🇰🇵) still hasn’t recovered from. The two sides still hate each other’s guts. But they established a DMZ where they felt comfortable in maintaining their own zone of influence.
(Also, NK is pretty analogous here in that, like Ukraine, they violated a border agreement when the conflict started, and spent a significant amount of time afterward on the defensive while waiting for Americans and their air superiority to run out of resources).
Additionally, Russia has been pretty forward that it desires a Ukranian DMZ that increases the distance between the missile emplacements of both Russia and NATO. This sort of guarantee would get them to take an armistice seriously.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
Negotiating with Russia does not guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Yet, negotiation is preferable to all out war because there is a chance of precluding it. One has to be a special kind of imbecile in order to not understand this.
And now Ukraine and Russia made a deal, which Russia immediately broke (they admitted it the bombing today). And this is the diplomacy which is needed in your opinion?
Read the rest of my reply where I explain in detail why Russia is now in the position to break the deal, and why negotiating BEFORE the war started had a much better chance of avoiding the current situation.
Please explain how are you going to go forward with diplomacy if the invader here is not to be trusted in even deals and negotiations like this? And you honestly expect after all this any military negotations are going to work any better?
Again, as I explained in my reply which you evidently did not read, we’re past the point where any meaningful negotiation is possible. Russia will now dictate its terms to Ukraine and to the west.
Then your understanding about diplomacy and negotations are purely fantasy. I’d prefer to use some other term for situations where the other side is just using force to get its way through.
My understanding of diplomacy and negotiations is based in realism. Using force to get its way through is precisely what the west has been doing for many decades. The reason the west has been able to do that was because nobody was willing to challenge the power of the west.
Such wet dreams directly from your propaganda team. We’ll see about that.
I’m stating a basic fact that western experts are now increasingly accepting. Here’s an assessment from the British military think tank you might want to read. As I said, I don’t need to convince you of anything. By the time winter comes the crisis in Europe will be impossible to ignore even for smooth brains such as yourself.
What path do you see forward for Ukraine? They are continuously losing men and territory. The longer this goes on the more they lose. Time is not Ukraine’s side.
This is not accurate. It was in the news report today that the casualties are around 30 soldiers per day. Or… did you count all the civilians to your numbers because you used the word “people”?
News reports clearly state that Ukraine is losing at least 200 soldiers every day. This is what Ukraine themselves says. This doesn’t include other casualties which result in additional troops being taken out of combat. If you’re going to lie, at least try to find something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds.
You are again claiming that geopolitics isn’t about trust, which is false.
Diplomacy can never be based on trust. If you really don’t understand why then I don’t know what else to tell you.
And how is that a compromise where bending the knee is the only options east provides?
That’s the option that the west has been providing for the past 30 years. Now you get to reap what you sowed. The west does not have the strength to challenge Russia. This means that the west has no hope to challenge China which has a far bigger industrial base. Either the west learns how to talk to countries it doesn’t like and to find compromises or it will bend the knee. You can keep screeching here all you like, but that won’t change the facts.
Diplomacy can never be based on geopolitics that happens without any trust. It doesn’t make any sense.
The only thing that doesn’t make sense is claiming that geopolitics can be based on trust. Countries that are adversaries inherently can’t trust each other. What you do is try to figure out the goals of your competitors, and find ways to find a compromise between their goals and your own.
Bending the knee is the last option available. Things have already gone too far for that to be possible. People are not gonna tolerate it.
And what are they going to do exactly. The west can’t match Russia in terms of military industrial production. Europe has no food and no fuel right now. If you seriously think that people are gonna tolerate starving and freezing to death to show off Russia, then what else is there to tell you.
Ukranian casualities are classified by the goverment, as well as the location of mobilized solder during his first 90 days of duty. That’s gives an possibility to the govement say literally any numbers of casualities.
There are indirect pointers of heavy casualities: introduced military duty on women, introduced mobilisation of infected with tuberculosis (non-officially), hard to leave the country by men, catch civilian attempts to mobilize on streets etc.
So you pasted a link that quotes an Ukrainian policitian about casualties, but then you don’t believe what Zelensky is saying?
Correct, Zelensky is known to lie constantly and he needs to keep up the narrative that things are going well in order to maintain support at home and from simpletons in the west. The official was admitting realistic numbers that every western intelligence agency agrees on. The second link I gave you is from yesterday. US intelligence officials directly contradict the absurd claim form Zelensky you linked.
Your opinion is uninformed and irrelevant. Sooner than later you will have to start adapting your views to the reality of the world.
All the expert opinions I’ve seen have reduced the situation in the east to a stalemate and possible Ukrainian regains in the south. Also, with how much I hear about Ukrainians being very disorganized at the start and with the further lack of any weapons apart from their own, it’s odd to claim the Ukrainian army was at its peak. The Russians seemed to have simply failed miserably trying to take over the entire country quickly.
Which experts are you reading? Western experts in the media are too biased in favour of the Ukrainian side to make accurate predictions.They have been wrong too many times to trust them.
I’ve been absent. Also, I’m going to half ignore your request for non-western sources by concentrating on the Finnish ones with very brief translations or explanations. I was not able to find the main source I was looking for, but this will do for now.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12540078
Finnish major general and former chief of intelligence, Pekka Toveri:
“Russia dominates by numbers, but Ukraine’s western arsenal is more modern and neither have the resources to solve the situation.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12314941/64-3-94534
Senior researcher at the Finnish National Defence University, Jukka Viitaniemi on the chances of Ukraine getting back southern regions:
“Yes, in light of recent events, considering the weapons and aid they’ve received. I would say it’s entirely possible and even probable. I would give it around a 50-70% chance, I can’t say with a 100% that this would happen.”
On the chances of taking back Crimea:
“In optimal conditions, yes.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12521889
Swedish Military University docent Ilmari Käihkö:
“Most observers agree that both sides will run out of troops over summer.”
If you mean YLE, then you need not worry. They’re not any different to any other news outlet in Finland except there site is less cancerous and they seem to write about opposing views a little more than others.
How much of territories Ukrain returned back to its control? Ukrain has a few tactical wins, like sinking down russian ship(s) and repell Russians from an island. But what are strategical gains since April?
From what I’ve seen, apart from Snake Island, they’ve made small gains at the very edges of the battle line but lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle. From what I’ve read, they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now and have been urging Ukrainians to evacuate from occupied territories before the real battles commence as it’ll get ugly. They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992 ( English wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine ). Would it be 10 000 of tanks, yep, that definitely might change the situation drastically.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
Correct. My understanding is that the situation in the east is at stalemate in large part due to the new HIMAR systems cutting supply lines. Right now, post-north regains, Ukraine seems to have lost fair bit more than it has gained.
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously. They may end up being correct, but I’m going to rely on the Finnish military experts instead which have been accurate in all accounts except calling that Putin wouldn’t invade.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992
There’s no way Ukraine had 6500 properly operational tanks and what you cite is from 1992. 200 simply is substantial. Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be. It’s a truck with a rocket launcher attached to it. So far there is absolutely zero indication that HIMARS are making any actual difference, nor is there any reason to expect them to.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
That’s not my analysis, it’s the anaylsis of pretty much every military expert out there. If you can’t see that Ukraine is losing the war, then you’re living in an alternate reality. I wonder if you will be capable of doing any self reflection once Ukraine loses the war.
Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
Russia has actual industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition. Ukraine and the west do not. This isn’t my assessment, this is what British military think tank states.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be.
You are right when you compare HIMARS with other Russian/Soviet MLRS. The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon. Ukraine don’t have such a missiles for now, at least officially, as far as I know.
Russia demostrated recently that it can successully intercept 100% of them with S-400 anti-air weapon.
The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon.
The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren’t going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it’s not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.
As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.
In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They’re being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it’s just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.
Tanks are useless if you don’t have air superiority. They will just get blown up. Same with artillery. You can’t go on the offensive without controlling the skies.
Ukraine’s only real advantage is the Bayraktar drone.
Show me a single actual expert, as in a person with military or logistics experience, saying there’s going to be some kind of a stalemate. Ukrainians were organized and trained to NATO standard at the start. If you think they were disorganized at the start, I can guarantee you they’re far less organized today.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
It’s also pretty clear that Russia was prepared for a protracted conflict given that they had all the supplies and logistics figured out ahead of time. They wouldn’t have been able to sustain the pace of war otherwise.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine built up layered defences on the contact line at Donbas over the past 8 years of the civil war. Russians along with DPR and LPR are now systematically taking those defences apart. And we’re now seeing the pace of the war accelerating as these defences are being broken through.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
The actual article doesn’t say what business insider claims though when taken in context. It clearly talks about the ongoing fighting and simply states reunification with Ukrain being the end result
However, even if we go with the business insider narrative, the fact that it was written isn’t really surprising. This stuff is always written ahead of time. For example, US had a story ready for the case if Apollo mission went wrong.
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Please do enlighten us what these weird claims are specifically.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
Russia sends a few people to stir trouble and they manage to fight the whole Ukrainian army for eight years. Russia must have some real Übermensch.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
Of course the whole world is suffering, and none of us know exactly what’s happening. However, it’s possible to get a general picture of how the events are unfolding and what to expect.
People still plugged in to lib media are so used to being gaslit that they always assume if your analysis points to the success of a side, you obviously support that side and have a vested interest in them “winning”. Gorbachev, as naive and fucking incompetent as he is, is correct that Russian socialism is dead and Putin is standing at the helm of a conservative wing of the bourgeoisie.
Reactionary anti-imperialists like the Russian Federation’s govt aren’t going to further the goals of communism. No one will “win” this war. It’s a prerequisite to a shift in power, our Bosnian Crisis heralding much larger conflict that may kill all of us, and I don’t think anyone here is mentally prepared for the buildup, removal of personal freedoms, and propaganda that will be built up in the interwar period.
Russia has effectively introduced a catalyst into a near-homogenous solution of American Imperialism. The precipitants falling out of it will form a new iron curtain around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Forum. With China, Russia, Iran, and possibly India forming the core of the group as they persuade neocolonies of western powers to dedollarize their economies.
The other side will be AUKUS, its Euro hostages, and some groupings of former British/French colonies who still believe in the NATO project for some reason. America is the most worrying of all, due to its refusal to ascribe to a No-First Strike policy and the increasing number of reactionaries saying a “small nuclear war” wouldn’t be so bad.
That’s basically where we’re at now. Completely agree that the world is breaking up into two major economic bloc, one being BRICS around China and the other being the western bloc around US. It’s also clear that BRICS has a much stronger industrial base, and that it’s where most productive growth will be happening.
Since US bloc is in active decline right now, the situation is indeed highly volatile. US is becoming increasingly desperate and trying ever more risky gambles in their attempts to contain China and to prevent their colonies from developing independently. As US continues to get more desperate, a possibility of a nuclear conflict looms ever closer.
One of the major goals with provoking Russia into a war was to cause an economic collapse there in hopes of breaking it up. Russia provides China with the resources and food that China needs, making it impossible for US to blockade China. A secondary goal was to cleave Europe from the east economically and politically. I would say this goal has been achieved, at least in the short term. As the economic situation in Europe becomes more desperate this may reverse.
Now that the gamble in Ukraine failed, US will likely focus on provoking a conflict in Taiwan next. There are already signs of this happening right now. US military think tanks state that the window for military action against China is closing, and that China will reach parity within a few years. Others argue that this has already happened given that US loses all their simulated war games in South China Sea. Either way, US has to act it soon or secede its role of a global hegemon.
I’m not a huge fan of continuing the BRICS acronym, simply on the basis that Brazil and South Africa don’t seem to be aligned in any particular direction. The US isn’t concerned about Lula so it seems like they’ll be more of an independent regional power for now.
AMLO seems to be signalling a shifting political climate in Mexico. That could get pretty hairy in the future, esp if they start to consider CELAC membership more important than their ties to North America.
Yeah, BRICS isn’t really descriptive and now with Iran and a few other countries likely to join it’s even less accurate. It does look like the current members do have strong economic ties that will be built on going forward. Where it’s going to have the most meaning is around having its own reserve currency based on the basket of member currencies. This is one of the biggest threats to US economically.
What’s happening in Mexico is very interesting, and it’s looking like left wing governments are starting to appear all over Latin America. This is an unprecedented situation. Previously, US only had to deal with a one or two adversaries in the region and they could easily choke them economically leading to regime change. However, now we have Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, Cuba, and likely Brazil in the near future. All of these countries are starting working to work together and reinforce each other. Meanwhile, China and Russia are providing them with trade opportunities that were previously closed off. This is a large scale disaster for US imperialism.
"The ineffectiveness of the campaign is so clear, and the ferociousness of the Ukrainian defence is so obvious … (that) it’s created an equalizer where neither side can move much from where they are now.”
“The damage and devastation to Ukrainian cities is likely to increase even in a period of stalemate,”
Frederick W. Kagan. senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. former professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Married to Kimberly Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War.
Ukrainian army was at its peak when the war started. It’s been significantly reduced in capacity since, and the weapons that the west sends come nowhere close to replacing what was lost. If Ukraine couldn’t win with its original force, why would anybody expect it to win with a hodgepodge of western weapons and a decimated army. Even western publications are starting to grudgingly accept that there is no path towards Ukraine winning this war.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine continues to lose territory. The longer this war goes on the more territory Ukraine will lose, and end up in an increasingly worse bargaining position.
deleted by creator
There is no path towards Ukraine getting any territory back. They’re losing between 9 and 10k people a month, this is not sustainable for any army. Geopolitics isn’t about trust, it’s about finding compromises that everyone can live with. This is what people in the west can’t get through their skulls. The west is no longer in a position where it can dictate what happens globally, and unless the west relearns how to do diplomacy we’ll be seeing a lot more conflicts happening going forward.
deleted by creator
Russia claims to have attacked military targets in the harbour, while the agreement only forbids attacks on grain transport infrastructure. If such infrastructure were attacked by Russia, Ukraine would have shared pictures of the damage within hours, but there is nothing.
I’ve already explained this to you pretty clearly above, but let’s go through it once again. When you are unable to dictate to other people, you must negotiate with them. This appears to be a really difficult concept for you to wrap your head around, so let’s break it down a bit.
Negotiation doesn’t mean that your adversary will always do what they say, and it’s not a matter of trust. What negotiation is about is finding situations where both parties are most likely to avoid open conflict because it would be more costly for them than the alternative compromise.
The situation in Ukraine has escalated to the point where Russia decided that conflict is preferable to whatever terms the west offers. They are also winning this conflict, and the west has shown itself to be impotent to reverse the course here.
The situation is a perfect illustration of why avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Before the war started, nobody knew what the relative strengths of Russia and the west were. It was entirely possible that the economic war could’ve crashed Russian economy as the west gambled, It was possible that the rest of the world would’ve lined up behind the west instead of Russia, and that Ukrainian military would’ve stopped Russian invasion.
All of these were possible scenarios, and this gave the west leverage over Russia to negotiate terms. In fact, Russia was willing to do just that for 8 years when they kept waiting for Minks protocols to be implemented. The west chose to ignore Russia’s concerns and to continue escalating to the point where Russia decided that they are willing to take the risk of an open conflict.
Now that the conflict happened there are a lot less hypotheticals on the table. Russia now knows that they are able to win militarily. They see that the sanctions failed to affect their economy significantly, and that the blow back in the west is far more severe. And finally, they see that majority of the world is either neutral or actively supporting them.
At this point any leverage that the west had over Russia has evaporated. Now, Russia will continue taking Ukraine apart until they decide to stop, and they will be dictating terms to the west because it’s know clear that there is no alternative to Russian energy in Europe.
deleted by creator
Like this. Two sides claim the whole territory. One of them is a neocolonial power (🇺🇲) who bombed 20% of the local population in what was essentially a genocidal campaign that that country (🇰🇵) still hasn’t recovered from. The two sides still hate each other’s guts. But they established a DMZ where they felt comfortable in maintaining their own zone of influence.
(Also, NK is pretty analogous here in that, like Ukraine, they violated a border agreement when the conflict started, and spent a significant amount of time afterward on the defensive while waiting for Americans and their air superiority to run out of resources).
Additionally, Russia has been pretty forward that it desires a Ukranian DMZ that increases the distance between the missile emplacements of both Russia and NATO. This sort of guarantee would get them to take an armistice seriously.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml
Great answer, people pretending that negotiations with an adversary aren’t possible are either ignorant or simply bad actors.
I answered your question in the second paragraph:
Negotiating with Russia does not guarantee that you’ll get what you want. Yet, negotiation is preferable to all out war because there is a chance of precluding it. One has to be a special kind of imbecile in order to not understand this.
Read the rest of my reply where I explain in detail why Russia is now in the position to break the deal, and why negotiating BEFORE the war started had a much better chance of avoiding the current situation.
Again, as I explained in my reply which you evidently did not read, we’re past the point where any meaningful negotiation is possible. Russia will now dictate its terms to Ukraine and to the west.
deleted by creator
My understanding of diplomacy and negotiations is based in realism. Using force to get its way through is precisely what the west has been doing for many decades. The reason the west has been able to do that was because nobody was willing to challenge the power of the west.
I’m stating a basic fact that western experts are now increasingly accepting. Here’s an assessment from the British military think tank you might want to read. As I said, I don’t need to convince you of anything. By the time winter comes the crisis in Europe will be impossible to ignore even for smooth brains such as yourself.
deleted by creator
What path do you see forward for Ukraine? They are continuously losing men and territory. The longer this goes on the more they lose. Time is not Ukraine’s side.
News reports clearly state that Ukraine is losing at least 200 soldiers every day. This is what Ukraine themselves says. This doesn’t include other casualties which result in additional troops being taken out of combat. If you’re going to lie, at least try to find something that can’t be googled in a couple of seconds.
Diplomacy can never be based on trust. If you really don’t understand why then I don’t know what else to tell you.
That’s the option that the west has been providing for the past 30 years. Now you get to reap what you sowed. The west does not have the strength to challenge Russia. This means that the west has no hope to challenge China which has a far bigger industrial base. Either the west learns how to talk to countries it doesn’t like and to find compromises or it will bend the knee. You can keep screeching here all you like, but that won’t change the facts.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, because Zelensky has a long track record of telling it like it is. Just thinking here how gullible somebody has to be to believe that Ukraine went from losing hundreds of people a day to only 30 because 12 HIMARS have been shipped there. I’ll trust what US officials have to say on this one https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-taking-hundreds-casualties-daily-ukraine-war-us-official-2022-07-22/
The only thing that doesn’t make sense is claiming that geopolitics can be based on trust. Countries that are adversaries inherently can’t trust each other. What you do is try to figure out the goals of your competitors, and find ways to find a compromise between their goals and your own.
And what are they going to do exactly. The west can’t match Russia in terms of military industrial production. Europe has no food and no fuel right now. If you seriously think that people are gonna tolerate starving and freezing to death to show off Russia, then what else is there to tell you.
deleted by creator
Ukranian casualities are classified by the goverment, as well as the location of mobilized solder during his first 90 days of duty. That’s gives an possibility to the govement say literally any numbers of casualities.
There are indirect pointers of heavy casualities: introduced military duty on women, introduced mobilisation of infected with tuberculosis (non-officially), hard to leave the country by men, catch civilian attempts to mobilize on streets etc.
Correct, Zelensky is known to lie constantly and he needs to keep up the narrative that things are going well in order to maintain support at home and from simpletons in the west. The official was admitting realistic numbers that every western intelligence agency agrees on. The second link I gave you is from yesterday. US intelligence officials directly contradict the absurd claim form Zelensky you linked.
Your opinion is uninformed and irrelevant. Sooner than later you will have to start adapting your views to the reality of the world.
All the expert opinions I’ve seen have reduced the situation in the east to a stalemate and possible Ukrainian regains in the south. Also, with how much I hear about Ukrainians being very disorganized at the start and with the further lack of any weapons apart from their own, it’s odd to claim the Ukrainian army was at its peak. The Russians seemed to have simply failed miserably trying to take over the entire country quickly.
Which experts are you reading? Western experts in the media are too biased in favour of the Ukrainian side to make accurate predictions.They have been wrong too many times to trust them.
I’ve been absent. Also, I’m going to half ignore your request for non-western sources by concentrating on the Finnish ones with very brief translations or explanations. I was not able to find the main source I was looking for, but this will do for now.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12540078 Finnish major general and former chief of intelligence, Pekka Toveri: “Russia dominates by numbers, but Ukraine’s western arsenal is more modern and neither have the resources to solve the situation.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12526593 Toveri: Essentially the same as above, but with various different additional comments.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12314941/64-3-94534 Senior researcher at the Finnish National Defence University, Jukka Viitaniemi on the chances of Ukraine getting back southern regions: “Yes, in light of recent events, considering the weapons and aid they’ve received. I would say it’s entirely possible and even probable. I would give it around a 50-70% chance, I can’t say with a 100% that this would happen.”
On the chances of taking back Crimea: “In optimal conditions, yes.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12521889 Swedish Military University docent Ilmari Käihkö: “Most observers agree that both sides will run out of troops over summer.”
https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/b94134db-060b-41ba-8d40-a70d8db559f1 Essentially the same as above, but with a fleshed out interview.
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/asiantuntija-hehkuttaa-himars-jarjestelmaa-ukraina-voi-kaantaa-edun-itselleen/#48cc421d Finnish Military University, Military Professor Marko Palokangas: A lot of praise for the effectiveness of HIMARS.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/07/russia-ukraine-war-update-what-we-know-on-day-134-of-the-invasion I’ve excluded Ukrainian and Russian sources as I mostly ignore them, but it’s worth mentioning they’ve described the HIMAR systems as “game changers”.
https://nitter.it/MarkHertling/status/1551668596803358724#m HIMARS and MLRS differences and why they matter from a former US army officer.
Most of these are government or almost-government sources. I am very skeptical about such sources given the enourmous pro-Ukrainian bias.
If you mean YLE, then you need not worry. They’re not any different to any other news outlet in Finland except there site is less cancerous and they seem to write about opposing views a little more than others.
How much of territories Ukrain returned back to its control? Ukrain has a few tactical wins, like sinking down russian ship(s) and repell Russians from an island. But what are strategical gains since April?
From what I’ve seen, apart from Snake Island, they’ve made small gains at the very edges of the battle line but lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle. From what I’ve read, they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now and have been urging Ukrainians to evacuate from occupied territories before the real battles commence as it’ll get ugly. They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992 ( English wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine ). Would it be 10 000 of tanks, yep, that definitely might change the situation drastically.
Correct. My understanding is that the situation in the east is at stalemate in large part due to the new HIMAR systems cutting supply lines. Right now, post-north regains, Ukraine seems to have lost fair bit more than it has gained.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously. They may end up being correct, but I’m going to rely on the Finnish military experts instead which have been accurate in all accounts except calling that Putin wouldn’t invade.
There’s no way Ukraine had 6500 properly operational tanks and what you cite is from 1992. 200 simply is substantial. Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be. It’s a truck with a rocket launcher attached to it. So far there is absolutely zero indication that HIMARS are making any actual difference, nor is there any reason to expect them to.
That’s not my analysis, it’s the anaylsis of pretty much every military expert out there. If you can’t see that Ukraine is losing the war, then you’re living in an alternate reality. I wonder if you will be capable of doing any self reflection once Ukraine loses the war.
Russia has actual industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition. Ukraine and the west do not. This isn’t my assessment, this is what British military think tank states.
You are right when you compare HIMARS with other Russian/Soviet MLRS. The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon. Ukraine don’t have such a missiles for now, at least officially, as far as I know.
Russia demostrated recently that it can successully intercept 100% of them with S-400 anti-air weapon.
The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren’t going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it’s not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.
As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.
In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They’re being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it’s just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.
Tanks are useless if you don’t have air superiority. They will just get blown up. Same with artillery. You can’t go on the offensive without controlling the skies.
Ukraine’s only real advantage is the Bayraktar drone.
Bayraktars proved to be a big joke.
Moskva disagrees.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yTIQUg18C0k
Show me a single actual expert, as in a person with military or logistics experience, saying there’s going to be some kind of a stalemate. Ukrainians were organized and trained to NATO standard at the start. If you think they were disorganized at the start, I can guarantee you they’re far less organized today.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
It’s also pretty clear that Russia was prepared for a protracted conflict given that they had all the supplies and logistics figured out ahead of time. They wouldn’t have been able to sustain the pace of war otherwise.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine built up layered defences on the contact line at Donbas over the past 8 years of the civil war. Russians along with DPR and LPR are now systematically taking those defences apart. And we’re now seeing the pace of the war accelerating as these defences are being broken through.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published-an-article-saying-russia-defeated-ukraine-2022-2
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
The actual article doesn’t say what business insider claims though when taken in context. It clearly talks about the ongoing fighting and simply states reunification with Ukrain being the end result
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
However, even if we go with the business insider narrative, the fact that it was written isn’t really surprising. This stuff is always written ahead of time. For example, US had a story ready for the case if Apollo mission went wrong.
Please do enlighten us what these weird claims are specifically.
Russia sends a few people to stir trouble and they manage to fight the whole Ukrainian army for eight years. Russia must have some real Übermensch.
Of course the whole world is suffering, and none of us know exactly what’s happening. However, it’s possible to get a general picture of how the events are unfolding and what to expect.
People still plugged in to lib media are so used to being gaslit that they always assume if your analysis points to the success of a side, you obviously support that side and have a vested interest in them “winning”. Gorbachev, as naive and fucking incompetent as he is, is correct that Russian socialism is dead and Putin is standing at the helm of a conservative wing of the bourgeoisie.
Reactionary anti-imperialists like the Russian Federation’s govt aren’t going to further the goals of communism. No one will “win” this war. It’s a prerequisite to a shift in power, our Bosnian Crisis heralding much larger conflict that may kill all of us, and I don’t think anyone here is mentally prepared for the buildup, removal of personal freedoms, and propaganda that will be built up in the interwar period.
Russia has effectively introduced a catalyst into a near-homogenous solution of American Imperialism. The precipitants falling out of it will form a new iron curtain around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Forum. With China, Russia, Iran, and possibly India forming the core of the group as they persuade neocolonies of western powers to dedollarize their economies.
The other side will be AUKUS, its Euro hostages, and some groupings of former British/French colonies who still believe in the NATO project for some reason. America is the most worrying of all, due to its refusal to ascribe to a No-First Strike policy and the increasing number of reactionaries saying a “small nuclear war” wouldn’t be so bad.
That’s basically where we’re at now. Completely agree that the world is breaking up into two major economic bloc, one being BRICS around China and the other being the western bloc around US. It’s also clear that BRICS has a much stronger industrial base, and that it’s where most productive growth will be happening.
Since US bloc is in active decline right now, the situation is indeed highly volatile. US is becoming increasingly desperate and trying ever more risky gambles in their attempts to contain China and to prevent their colonies from developing independently. As US continues to get more desperate, a possibility of a nuclear conflict looms ever closer.
One of the major goals with provoking Russia into a war was to cause an economic collapse there in hopes of breaking it up. Russia provides China with the resources and food that China needs, making it impossible for US to blockade China. A secondary goal was to cleave Europe from the east economically and politically. I would say this goal has been achieved, at least in the short term. As the economic situation in Europe becomes more desperate this may reverse.
Now that the gamble in Ukraine failed, US will likely focus on provoking a conflict in Taiwan next. There are already signs of this happening right now. US military think tanks state that the window for military action against China is closing, and that China will reach parity within a few years. Others argue that this has already happened given that US loses all their simulated war games in South China Sea. Either way, US has to act it soon or secede its role of a global hegemon.
I’m not a huge fan of continuing the BRICS acronym, simply on the basis that Brazil and South Africa don’t seem to be aligned in any particular direction. The US isn’t concerned about Lula so it seems like they’ll be more of an independent regional power for now.
AMLO seems to be signalling a shifting political climate in Mexico. That could get pretty hairy in the future, esp if they start to consider CELAC membership more important than their ties to North America.
Yeah, BRICS isn’t really descriptive and now with Iran and a few other countries likely to join it’s even less accurate. It does look like the current members do have strong economic ties that will be built on going forward. Where it’s going to have the most meaning is around having its own reserve currency based on the basket of member currencies. This is one of the biggest threats to US economically.
What’s happening in Mexico is very interesting, and it’s looking like left wing governments are starting to appear all over Latin America. This is an unprecedented situation. Previously, US only had to deal with a one or two adversaries in the region and they could easily choke them economically leading to regime change. However, now we have Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, Cuba, and likely Brazil in the near future. All of these countries are starting working to work together and reinforce each other. Meanwhile, China and Russia are providing them with trade opportunities that were previously closed off. This is a large scale disaster for US imperialism.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8710682/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate/
"The ineffectiveness of the campaign is so clear, and the ferociousness of the Ukrainian defence is so obvious … (that) it’s created an equalizer where neither side can move much from where they are now.”
“The damage and devastation to Ukrainian cities is likely to increase even in a period of stalemate,”
Frederick W. Kagan. senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. former professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Married to Kimberly Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War.
This article is all the way back from March, show me anybody claiming anything of the sort today.