I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I just don’t see a possible victory. Maybe in the past, but at this point it seems like Ukraine should be focused on making their terms of surrender as beneficial to themselves as possible. I don’t see Kursk changing that calculus, though I welcome different analysis.
Surrender is out of the question for Ukraine. Russia has shown from the first day of the invasion on, that this war is as much a land grab, as it is a punishment for not being Russian enough.
Russia has been grinding for years now with only miniscule wins, while Ukraine has made some very successful counter offensives. Ukraine simply has the better army. Whether they can win back their territory depends on international support. But even if that fades, I don’t see a scenario in which they just give up. And Russia will only give them an acceptable peace deal if Putin fears for his power or has been removed. This is in part why they launched the Kursk offensive. They need to pressure Putin or continue grinding.
Also: Holding Russian land is maybe the best bargaining chip they have for future negotiations.
Surrender is out of the question for Ukraine. Russia has shown from the first day of the invasion on, that this war is as much a land grab, as it is a punishment for not being Russian enough.
What? From day 1, Russia has made it clear that it wants to grab the contested territories, and demilitarize Ukraine as a consequence of unimpeded NATO expansion. NATO has ignored Russia’s demands and pressed further.
Russia has been grinding for years now with only miniscule wins, while Ukraine has made some very successful counter offensives.
Slow and steady wins are wins. Ukraine hasn’t managed to turn the tide.
Ukraine simply has the better army.
With respect to what?
Whether they can win back their territory depends on international support. But even if that fades, I don’t see a scenario in which they just give up.
You’re saying Ukraine will fight to their last breath? The war is becoming increasingly unpopular as time goes on, do you expect this trend to reverse at some point?
And Russia will only give them an acceptable peace deal if Putin fears for his power or has been removed. This is in part why they launched the Kursk offensive. They need to pressure Putin or continue grinding.
Acceptable to who? You? Wouldn’t any agreed upon peace-deal be acceptable?
Also: Holding Russian land is maybe the best bargaining chip they have for future negotiations.
Can they hold it? It seems Kursk is taking away from Ukraine’s ability to hold onto key territory.
The CIA since the start of the war has assessed that Russia posseses neither the intention nor the capability to take and hold Ukraine. So the fact that you think Russia has shown since day 1 that it’s a land grab is not supported by anything except the propaganda you latched onto and won’t let get of despite all evidence.
Second, it has made very clear that it’s fundamental concern is not Russian-ness but NATO deployments. When a country joins NATO they give over land, rights, and money to a nuclear transnational military with zero accountability to any voting population. NATO uses that land, those rights, and that money to build nuclear first-strike capabilities which amount to shortest-flight launch positions, anti-missile capabilities along retaliation paths, and forward-deployed detection/recon/Intel. These capabilities fundamentally undermine MAD and are inline with US war hawk positions that the USA should demonstrate it can win a nuclear war.
But that’s just the nuclear problem. NATO also builds supply chains, logistics, barracks, armories, air bases, training facilities, command centers, and other capabilities in this territory ceded by the countries that join. That network puts to shame the networks built by the likes of Napoleon’s empire or Hitler’s Third Reich, because those networks needed to be built mid-invasion. NATO gets to build during relative peace time in countries that are under the influence of the economic and political hegemony who deploys soft and hard power to get their way.
But none of this matters if NATO is purely defensive, like their doctrine says. Well that doctrine went out the window almost immediately after the USSR was dismantled when Bill Clinton sent NATO to bomb Yugoslavia. You can try to make the case the world’s first ever war for humanitarian intervention was in fact a defensive humanitarian intervention, but you all need to explain why NATO dropped depleted uranium bombs in densely populated urban areas. They launched a war of aggression in everything but rhetoric.
And that same guy, Clinton, who oversaw this atrocity of aggression by NATO (the defensive pact) also was negotiating with the new Russian Federation about NATO expansion. Russia stated back in 1992 that NATO in Ukraine was a redline. Clinton agreed. Then, the same year, directed his team to begin getting plans together to bring Ukraine into NATO. The duplicity is a matter of record. “But”, I hear you say, “why should Russia be able to dictate who can and can’t join NATO”. Great question!
You’ll have heard by now that Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia. Specifically, the land of Ukraine acts as a buffer for Russia’s strategic interests. Why should we believe Russia? We don’t have to. We can just look at history.
The last 2 times Russia was invaded, they lost millions of people. Both of those invasions were by the dominant European power of the day. First it was Emperor Napoleon, who marched across Europe, building supply chains and logistics to manage his army as they invaded Russia in what is known historically as one of the bloodiest campaigns in history. Then it was Hitler and Third Reich fielding the world’s most advanced military and most advanced tactics building their supply chains and logistics across Europe to manage their army as they invaded Russia. Again, millions of Russians died.
Where did these 2 great invasions happen? Across the border with Ukraine. We don’t have to believe Russia. Western Europe has demonstrated that Ukraine is strategically necessary to invade Russia. Controlling a well supplied military at the Ukrainian border with Russia is how Western Europe invades Russia.
So when the US uses NATO to build supply chains and logistics to field the world’s most advanced nuclear military WITH A SEPARATE COMMAND STRUCTURE UNACCOUNTABLE TO ANY NATION’S PEOPLE at the border of Ukraine and Russia, it is pretty fucking clear what is happening. And when that army has a doctrine of “defense only” and then proceeds to drop DU from bombers onto an urban European country during an internal conflict that did not trigger the mutual defense clause, and then proceeds to engage in wars outside it’s doctrine like demolishing Libya or supporting the US occupation of Afghanistan, no amount of liberal whining that NATO is defensive is going to matter.
No military would ever allow the border over which it was invaded twice and lost millions of people over to become the location that its geopolitical rival builds a fully supplied, trained, staffed, and supported nuclear military presence. No country in the world would allow this.
So, at this point, you either need to deal with reality or suck your head back up your ass and live in your delusional world.
Then we could talk about the delusion of Ukraine having the superior military. But not until you give up the delusion of history.
I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
I’m sorry but Russia is 100% winning and has been for quite a while now
What is Ukraine’s path to victory?
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
I wish I had Russia’s economic hardships https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I just don’t see a possible victory. Maybe in the past, but at this point it seems like Ukraine should be focused on making their terms of surrender as beneficial to themselves as possible. I don’t see Kursk changing that calculus, though I welcome different analysis.
I do! I’m very excited to see Ukraine continue to push, hopefully all the way to Moscow! Great job guys.
What would pushing all the way to Moscow do? Cost more lives? Do you even think it’s remotely possible in the fist place? Why?
translation: a bloodthirsty psychopath is very excited to see other people die for their entertainment, so many sick fucks on this site
Surrender is out of the question for Ukraine. Russia has shown from the first day of the invasion on, that this war is as much a land grab, as it is a punishment for not being Russian enough.
Russia has been grinding for years now with only miniscule wins, while Ukraine has made some very successful counter offensives. Ukraine simply has the better army. Whether they can win back their territory depends on international support. But even if that fades, I don’t see a scenario in which they just give up. And Russia will only give them an acceptable peace deal if Putin fears for his power or has been removed. This is in part why they launched the Kursk offensive. They need to pressure Putin or continue grinding.
Also: Holding Russian land is maybe the best bargaining chip they have for future negotiations.
What? From day 1, Russia has made it clear that it wants to grab the contested territories, and demilitarize Ukraine as a consequence of unimpeded NATO expansion. NATO has ignored Russia’s demands and pressed further.
Slow and steady wins are wins. Ukraine hasn’t managed to turn the tide.
With respect to what?
You’re saying Ukraine will fight to their last breath? The war is becoming increasingly unpopular as time goes on, do you expect this trend to reverse at some point?
Acceptable to who? You? Wouldn’t any agreed upon peace-deal be acceptable?
Can they hold it? It seems Kursk is taking away from Ukraine’s ability to hold onto key territory.
Holy shit you’re delusional.
The CIA since the start of the war has assessed that Russia posseses neither the intention nor the capability to take and hold Ukraine. So the fact that you think Russia has shown since day 1 that it’s a land grab is not supported by anything except the propaganda you latched onto and won’t let get of despite all evidence.
Second, it has made very clear that it’s fundamental concern is not Russian-ness but NATO deployments. When a country joins NATO they give over land, rights, and money to a nuclear transnational military with zero accountability to any voting population. NATO uses that land, those rights, and that money to build nuclear first-strike capabilities which amount to shortest-flight launch positions, anti-missile capabilities along retaliation paths, and forward-deployed detection/recon/Intel. These capabilities fundamentally undermine MAD and are inline with US war hawk positions that the USA should demonstrate it can win a nuclear war.
But that’s just the nuclear problem. NATO also builds supply chains, logistics, barracks, armories, air bases, training facilities, command centers, and other capabilities in this territory ceded by the countries that join. That network puts to shame the networks built by the likes of Napoleon’s empire or Hitler’s Third Reich, because those networks needed to be built mid-invasion. NATO gets to build during relative peace time in countries that are under the influence of the economic and political hegemony who deploys soft and hard power to get their way.
But none of this matters if NATO is purely defensive, like their doctrine says. Well that doctrine went out the window almost immediately after the USSR was dismantled when Bill Clinton sent NATO to bomb Yugoslavia. You can try to make the case the world’s first ever war for humanitarian intervention was in fact a defensive humanitarian intervention, but you all need to explain why NATO dropped depleted uranium bombs in densely populated urban areas. They launched a war of aggression in everything but rhetoric.
And that same guy, Clinton, who oversaw this atrocity of aggression by NATO (the defensive pact) also was negotiating with the new Russian Federation about NATO expansion. Russia stated back in 1992 that NATO in Ukraine was a redline. Clinton agreed. Then, the same year, directed his team to begin getting plans together to bring Ukraine into NATO. The duplicity is a matter of record. “But”, I hear you say, “why should Russia be able to dictate who can and can’t join NATO”. Great question!
You’ll have heard by now that Ukraine is of strategic importance to Russia. Specifically, the land of Ukraine acts as a buffer for Russia’s strategic interests. Why should we believe Russia? We don’t have to. We can just look at history.
The last 2 times Russia was invaded, they lost millions of people. Both of those invasions were by the dominant European power of the day. First it was Emperor Napoleon, who marched across Europe, building supply chains and logistics to manage his army as they invaded Russia in what is known historically as one of the bloodiest campaigns in history. Then it was Hitler and Third Reich fielding the world’s most advanced military and most advanced tactics building their supply chains and logistics across Europe to manage their army as they invaded Russia. Again, millions of Russians died.
Where did these 2 great invasions happen? Across the border with Ukraine. We don’t have to believe Russia. Western Europe has demonstrated that Ukraine is strategically necessary to invade Russia. Controlling a well supplied military at the Ukrainian border with Russia is how Western Europe invades Russia.
So when the US uses NATO to build supply chains and logistics to field the world’s most advanced nuclear military WITH A SEPARATE COMMAND STRUCTURE UNACCOUNTABLE TO ANY NATION’S PEOPLE at the border of Ukraine and Russia, it is pretty fucking clear what is happening. And when that army has a doctrine of “defense only” and then proceeds to drop DU from bombers onto an urban European country during an internal conflict that did not trigger the mutual defense clause, and then proceeds to engage in wars outside it’s doctrine like demolishing Libya or supporting the US occupation of Afghanistan, no amount of liberal whining that NATO is defensive is going to matter.
No military would ever allow the border over which it was invaded twice and lost millions of people over to become the location that its geopolitical rival builds a fully supplied, trained, staffed, and supported nuclear military presence. No country in the world would allow this.
So, at this point, you either need to deal with reality or suck your head back up your ass and live in your delusional world.
Then we could talk about the delusion of Ukraine having the superior military. But not until you give up the delusion of history.