- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Stage 5: Acceptance
And the sky is blue and grass is green… We pretty much knew this ever since early 2022 lmao
Implying that it even had something of a chance to begin with
Two years ago, the Ukrainian Armed Forces defied expectations immediately. Days before Russia’s massive combined arms incursion, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spoke for the U.S. military when he predicted to Congress that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.
Many military analysts similarly predicted the Russian Armed Forces would quickly rout the overmatched Ukrainians. American leaders encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to leave the country, lest Russian troops assassinate him.
This whole narrative has to have been pure bullshit, right? The West had been arming Ukraine since 2014, Merkel even admitted the Minsk II agreements were just stalling for that purpose, and if you sell Ukraine as this hopelessly outmatched smol bean that’s certainly doomed, it’s easier to rally public support when it “somehow” beats all odds to hang in the fight. It’s classic setting expectations at zero so anything looks like success, and fits with how often the media has ran with the “full scale” descriptor of the Russian invasion.
“Predicted to Congress” really just means “made some shit up to get everyone on board with a proxy war”. That said, the supply of weapons and money from the USA and EU has artificially prolonged the war so it has taken a lot longer than it otherwise would have. Now that the supply of weapons and money is starting to dry up, you can already see how quickly things are deteriorating because Ukraine doesn’t have the ability to sustain their losses on their own. Not to mention how close a peace deal was back in 2022 before the USA and UK stepped in to scuttle it.
Ukraine is hopelessly outmatched and is doomed. It basically has been since the beginning. The question was really only ever one of how long it would take and how many Ukrainians would die in the process.
Colin Powel Shining
Good point – no better way to pitch funding a war than “defeat is imminent unless you give me unlimited cash right now”
The question was really only ever one of how long it would take and how many Ukrainians would die in the process.
Also how badly Russia would be hurt in the process, which is worth mentioning since it’s the only the the west cares about here.
I think there might honestly be a case to be made that a fast end to the war would have been better for the west. Because now, Russia has a military full of soldiers who are veterans at fighting against NATO hardware and tactics, and a military industrial complex in high gear that can source all the parts it needs without being affected by USA/EU sanctions. Not that it’s all sunshine and roses for Russia of course, but the USA failed to inflict any mortal wounds and now Russia is far better prepared to resist NATO in the future.
Not to mention, of course, all the other bad side effects on USA hegemony of NATO’s ineptitude being put on display for the entire world.
The prolonged sanctions fiasco also did more to end western economic hegemony than it did to hurt Russia.
I think you could argue the sanctions kinda helped Russia in a sense, last I heard their economy is up and they have less dollars dependence, more economic options,
One of the most important changes is in the re-industrialization of Russia.
Before the sanctions, Russia was comfortable with being a resource extraction colony of the West, where low labor-intensive mining and extraction industries enabled an accumulation of wealth which enriched their bourgeois class, but did not lead to the proletarianization of the working class, as value-added goods were simply imported from abroad rather than manufacturing their own.
Now, with all the sanctions, Russia is being forced to develop and relying on its own industries (import substitution) to replace the loss of Western goods. This re-industrialization is significant because it will lead to increasing proletarianization of the working class - the pre-conditions for the growth of socialist movements.
There is a reason why Western countries were so keen on de-industrializing themselves, not only because of the dominance of finance capital, but because they no longer have to deal with labor movements at home. The consequence of this is the fragmentation and dissolution of genuine left wing movements across the advanced Western countries.
Proletarianization is the transformation of members of a society into proletarians. You seem to be implying that you think modern Russia has a substantial portion of its population in the peasantry, which is not my understanding. Urban industrial proletarians are not the only proletarians.
Yeah, but now this is the canon in the west that has to be incorporated into any future narratives.
War is unpredictable. Ukraine is outmatched but defenders advantage goes a long way. Total defeat of Ukraine’s military in the field wouldn’t be achievable in 72 hours but it was still possible for a surrender to have occurred in that timespan if the chips landed the right way. While they definitely do exaggerate their predictions for several strategic reasons (budgetary, propaganda, cointel) the element of simply preparing for the worst case scenario is probably still the primary reason and no analyst gets gets their name dragged in the mud for having urged too much caution.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spoke for the U.S. military when he predicted to Congress that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours
So finally there is is, the long awaited source for the all time favourite liberal bullshit that Kiev will fall in 3 days. And of course it was a projection too since it was said by US general, not Russian.
I think the Belarusian president had a similar statement, too, but that’s still not Russia.
Possibly, Luka does sometimes like to exaggerate to push a point
They definitely could have won much faster if they went for carpet-bombing (as they thankfully understood they should not have done), as they are still easily among the strongest air forces on the planet.
remember back when this first started how confident libs were
that fucking ukraine could win a war of attrition against Russia, while using nazis? Russia won the moment they actually committed to the war.
I always claimed that Russia won in the first speech where he said that if other European foreces interfere they would not have time to think before they are dragged into the conflict. That significantly restricted the range of actions Europe and even the US had to strike back. That in my opining all but ensured that Ukraine would loose
The amazing part is that a lot of libs still think Ukraine can win this.
heres how hiliary and ukraine and bernie can still win-
Was the goal ever to win? I assumed the goal always was to have another permanent stalemate backed up by endless US arms sales; basically a second Israel.
US military industry is certainly a party that is not in any way upset regarding how the war is going. There are going to be contracts for decades to come with effectively unlimited tap.
That was the intent, zman himself said as much
What can I say? Slava baloni
At this point, they’ll be fine to consider Ukraine still existing a ‘victory’…
Give it 2 months of blissfull scilence on the topic as they hope we all forget about it before they tout the victory
And also at the same time proof putin is reforming the USSR
“While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy.”
My three biggest flaws:
1.) I work too hard.
2.) I care too much.
3.) I would’ve kicked your ass if my bros didn’t pull me away.
🤣
4.) I have too much street wisdom
5.) My heart is too big
6.) I smoke more different than anybody
7.) my allies too bad
Lol @ the big red “the views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of the Hill” up top, above even the headline.
A lot of writing in that article is bad, but this takes the propaganda cake:
Russia also has the advantage of time. While Putin can lead Russia along a single strategic trajectory regardless of the length of the war, the U.S. is subject to the whims of democracy. The White House and seats in Congress change hands. Policies change as voters grow weary of supporting other countries.
It’s like an onion. There’s so many levels to these 3 sentences, that if I start peeling them apart, I’ll burst into tears.
lol truly
If someone could explain the significant material differences between my 2 choices that would be great, but the west seems to be able to stick it out just as long as the elections change nothing.
Also the studies that show popular will has no impact on what the government does cries
Incredibly out of reality. They are essentially implying that only the west is accountable to their constituents while the East can do whatever they want because the population is “brainwashed”.
Meanwhile the US state is in a constant state of governing against the interests of their own people.
they want because the population is “brainwashed”.
it seems like a form of the “asiatic hordes” theme that has been so prevalent for so long
Yes, and it has also destroyed Russia’s offensive capability against Europe for years to come.
America, by spending a mere drop in the bucket in terms of defense budget, saved Europe from an impending Russian invasion.
Russia’s reputation as a military “superpower” is now completely tarnished. The world will remember them as a failed state that took what, a year? to capture one Ukrainian village.
It has…? Russia’s been using like 2% of their actual capabilities lol if this isn’t sarcasm you look goofy as hell
Folx I’m pretty sure this is satire lol
Does need that “/s” though cuz NATOids unironically say this shit
Yes, and it has also destroyed Russia’s offensive capability against Europe for years to come.
Russia is at its militarily strongest since the end of the cold war
NATO is severely depleted with no sign of a large buildup to fill it back up
are you stupid
Russia’s reputation as a military “superpower” is now completely tarnished. The world will remember them as a failed state that took what, a year? to capture one Ukrainian village.
google what was world war one
libs are nothing but infuriating, racist, and cocky
no brain just vibes
It emptied NATO stockpiles too and they are not being replenished nowhere as fast as Russia’s
It’s destroyed NATO’s offensive capabilities against Russia, or realistically anyone America conciders an enemy, as well.
Money does not equal material goods, and this war has seen the consumption of the armament and munition stockpiles of both countries’ cold war legacy supplies.
The difference is that Russia can maintain the defense, as its war doctrine primarily focuses on. Whereas America and NATO can not attempt an offensive, as their war doctrines focuses on, without any attempted expeditionary force most likely collapsing from overextention.
Deepthroat that boot
bad bit
That guy looks like Chris O’Dowd
Analysis of the article that is seemingly biased towards Pax Americana:
- The Kyiv government have inferior military resource in both quality and quantity. This implies that the claim by Pax Americana news outlet that Russians used outdated weapons that is so inaccurate that it targets civilians by mistake was a mere projection of attacks on civilians by Kyiv and Azov thugs.
- The Kyiv government depends completely on USA government for support against the humanitarian intervention from Russia. This implies that Euromaiden Kyiv government lack democratic support which implied that the 2019 Ukraine election was rigged or unrepresentative of the whole Ukraine population.
- Putin engaged in attrition which gave advantage to Russians since it cause the slow loss of military supplies, morality of troops, and external support of Euromaiden Kyiv while Russia have sufficient supplies and support for the humanitarian intervention. This implied that the claim by Pax Americana that Putin is losing military resources, morality of soldiers, and support was a lie. It also contradicts the previous Pax Americana claim that Putin was wasting too much national resource in the war or that Putin was aggressively expanding Russian “occupation” of Ukraine. This also has the implication that Putin honestly follows his claim to only engage in humanitarian intervention for protection of rebelling states.
- The article did not mention the justification that Putin have for the military intervention nor the context which implies genuine Pax Americana biases.
I hope you’re getting something out of that writing exercise, since I think everyone can clearly see “thehill.com” in the url and come to the same conclusion
I find every article from western mainstream media has to be packed with these cliches nowadays. They squirrel the admissions in between, but they have to pour on copium on top.
Even if they dont believe the copium, or even secretly loathe doling it out, they have to if they want to keep their jobs.
*Kiev
Thehill can eat shit. Their entire shtick was to corral Bernie supporters into a dead end so they wouldn’t actually radicalize.
