- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Looks like Ukrainians are done dying for “western values”.
Many never did so in the first place, they became the LPR & DPR.
Turns out they never wanted to. They were just conscripted under threat of execution.
Go back! 100,000 landmines demand their legs! Go back! Feed the mines! FEED THE MINES!
Tired: the children yearn for the mines
Wired: the mines yearn for more children
Young men
There’s no need to feel down
I said young me- wait where is everyone going?
Young men, there’s no need to feel down
I say young men, they have all left the townI say young man, don’t be such a clown
you don’t
need
to
die
for
nato
So what happens when Ukraine loses? Are we at war with Russia then?
Do people of Europe actually want war with Russia? Wasn’t there a whole scandal in Romania because of people explicitly not wanting to have war?
if war starts, I can only imagine it’ll be Vietnam/Ukraine all over again, except in proper EU territory this time
NATO can’t field an actual war against Russia, NATO countries don’t have the industrial capacity to do so. NATO has big scary tools, but not many of them, and in a protracted war where the industrial power wins Russia would win out. It would be very bloody, long, and NATO would lose, so it’s unlikely that there will be all-out war.
20th C thinking.
- NATO countries would tool up fairly quickly on a war footing
- strategic advantage is no longer about tanks and artillery, it’s about the next few generations of drones
- dirty tricks haven’t even begun, really
- energy capacity is at this weird turning point of shifting production options and efficiencies, makes predictions harder
- Ukraine’s industrial capacity has changed to a war footing and they now export drones
- a non-democratic Ukraine would be a risk as big as oligarchy Russia
Ukraine is already not a democracy.
NATO countries have hollowed out their industry for the last century, instead preferring to outsource production and plunder the world. Further, ballistic munitions are still useful, as are drones. There’s no realistic scenario where NATO countries can mobilize to full wartime economies, not with industry as hollowed out as it is.
It’s cute you think the military industrial complex is so weak, or that the near moritorium on long range ballistcs hasn’t been incredibly beneficial to Russia.
In reality, the second money starts pouring into a European war effort, all thoughts of AI will be gone, they’ll be pulling apart gpus for spare silicon for the war machine. That’s profit at an unbelievable scale.
Like this almost feels like cope…
The MIC runs on the profit motive, it’s far more expensive to develop comparable tools than compared to state-run industry, and the west has already holowed out its own industry.
Profit motive doesn’t equal capital investment. Watch how fast the machine moves when profit motive meets profit opportunity. I saw this hollowed out line repeated a whole bunch, your latest mantra?
“There is no industry in Bah Sing Se”
Unfortunately my recently rested and bathed friend, Russia is barely moving a war against a tiny nation getting scraps compared to even 1 day of munitions used killing Palestinians. It’s not even hard to debunk this one, you just sound silly.
Wow, you’re so wrong in this you’re actually getting negative in your hugbox, that’s wild. Guess you can’t win em all.
Russia is steadily achieving their aims, they don’t need to rapidly advance because they aren’t trying to take all of Ukraine. They have the industrial capacity to be steady and thorough. Ukraine is putting up a fight, but can’t actually last for much longer.
Secondly, regarding the profit motive, it will always result in less efficient investment. Industry is hollowed out, and can’t be built overnight. Missiles, drones, etc cost far more to produce in the US than in Russia for comparable results.
Russia can’t even beat ukraine.
Russia is literally fighting all of NATO here.
They are steadily achieving all of their stated objectives for the SMO. Russia isn’t trying to do a Marvel-style total destruction of Ukraine like you see in hollywood depictions of war.
Their goalposts have moved. Originally they attacked on all fronts including the capital and expected to topple Ukraine within a week.
Their goalposts haven’t moved, their strategy was to open with shock and awe and then push for protracted war, taking advantage of surprise. They didn’t expect to topple Ukraine in a week, that’s largely a misquote from the early 2010s.
“steadily” as in… they complete one every couple of years? How long until they’re done? 10-20-30 years? They started this in 2014 and 11 years later they’ve accomplished next to nothing beyond creating a pile of bodies.
If germany took this long to take poland it probably wouldn’t have been world war at all.
The SMO started in 2022. In 2014, after the western-backed Euromaidan coup, Crimea was annexed but then there were multiple attempts to resolve things peacefully, called the Minsk Agreements, which Kiev broke both times. In 2014, Donetsk and Luhansk seceded from the new far-right led Ukraine, fastforward to 2022 after a decade of fighting and Russia agrees to go in and resolve things by force.
Since 2022, Russia has steadily been gaining more and more territory, and has nearly completely taken the four oblasts they declared as their targets for annexation. Ukraine has slowly but steadily been losing ground, and NATO has proven to be incapable of matching Russian industrial output. Russia isn’t trying to do a Blitzkreig, they are going carefully to fully demillitarize Ukraine and prevent casualties on their own end. They have the industrial capacity to field a protracted war, so they are playing to their advantage.
I read a few articles that said at russias current pace it would take them a hundred years to take Ukraine.
Because wars are famously always linear, especially battlefronts.
They aren’t trying to take Ukraine, though, and they can progress faster as frontlines are broken through. Pokrovsk, as an example, is currently encircled by Russian forces and will probably be abandoned by Kiev soon, or a large-scale siege will occur.
Whether you’re pro-Ukrainian or not, it’s important to recognize that Ukraine is steadily losing ground and has far less staying power in a protracted war than Russia does. Russia’s advancing slowly and basically forcing a long-term war, which works in their favor.
Russia has had its ass kicked with western hand-me-downs. Once they roll out the real kit, the whole thing will be over within days.
You’ll be greeted as liberators?
Well, not YOU personally . . . Chickenhawks saying this crap never seem to make it to the front lines.
And by had its ass kicked you mean defeated everything NATO could throw at it for the past 3 years.
Russia is winning now, and hasn’t fielded the “real kit” either. NATO just does not have the productive capacity to field a long term war. I’m not sure why warmongers like yourself keep thinking there’s going to be a grand turning point, in a decade when we look back on this event I fear the warmongers will say they knew the outcome all along.
That’s a truck load of crap. If the real kit is old Soviet kit then you are right.
No, Russia has tools like Oreshnik that just don’t make sense to use against Ukraine at scale.
Removed by mod
Not at all, and I don’t think ableism is a substitute for a point. I want the war to end, which means peace talks now and concessions from Ukraine.
Why should they concede anything. They’re a sovereign nation, and owe nothing. The war can end right now by Russia returning back whence it came.
Because they are losing the war. The world does not run on Marvel-logic, Russia isn’t going to stop until their stated goals are met.
Why do you think NATO would need a long term war to deal with Russia?
There is nothing militarily nato can do. Even if different countries wanted to help more and actually fielded armies, it would be a stalemate. Only a political solution will work.
Because it can’t win a short-term war unless it goes nuclear, and then everyone loses.
And why can’t it win a short-term war?
Because it doesn’t have the power to take down an industrialized nuclear power like Russia in a short term war. I don’t see what you’re imagining here.
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
But Israel-iran has showed that not even America has the ability to do an actual war against another industrial power
Operation Barbarossa 2: Surely this time it’ll be like Poland
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
Okay wild fantasies aside, back here in the real world, what’s NATO supposed to actually do? If they try to ‘devastate’ Russia, as in attempt to turn it into Gaza, Russia will 100% nuke the offending countries seriously firing this kind of barrage against them. They’ve been reasonable against Ukraine because Ukraine has hardly been a threat (in fact most Russians would probably say too reasonable), but if a threat they’ve credibly been fearing for decades decided to pull out all the stops, so will they; NATO knows this which is why they weren’t officially in the war this whole time; the best time to be involved was literally day 1, the next best time was day 2, and so on and so forth.
The simple fact is when Ukraine falls, the war is over; you want a country that was willing to risk their safety to get involved in a conflict? You have Yemen, they showed what a country willing to get bombed is willing to do; Euro countries don’t want to get bombed; Let me say that again: Euro countries don’t. want. to. get. bombed. All these countries in Europe had their chance to show how far they were willing to oppose Russia, back when Ukraine had a lot more people to throw in the meat grinder; there’s a lot less Ukrainians now who can and will fight, and Euro forces would have to bear the brunt of the fighting, and if they were willing to do this, they would’ve done it far earlier. Europe. Is. Scared. They won’t join this fight.
When Ukraine falls, the war is over.
Oh yeah was between NATO and Russia is never happening anywhere outside the mashpiratory fantasies of European liberals
If they had to, then they would try shock and awe. Protracted war wouldn’t work out, whoever has industry holds the cards long-term. Russia would go for stall tactics, I would think.
Weren’t all these points equally valid when the West actively thrust Ukraine into war, too?
You’re assuming NATO instead maybe cares about the lives of non-Ukrainians in Europe, I wouldn’t rely on that. We are all meat for the MIC profit blender. Winning or losing the war is almost irrelevant, no citizen of the core is safe so long as their deaths might make line go up in the short term.
Ukraine is an attack dog for NATO, and porkie would love to send workers to war, but not if it hurts their bottom line. That’s why they’ve tried to use proxies like Ukraine.
I wonder if in retrospect this will be considered “the straw that broke the camel’s back”?
Putting aside the jokes about “they don’t gain ground fast enough therefore I win”, Zelensky’s strategy of fighting with a slave army of kidnapped men was and still is quite sucessful - Russia liberates no more than tens of km2 a day.
But now, for whatever reason, he lets a good chunk of potential cannon fodder leave. Eventually running out of cannon fodder was always a ticking time bomb, and now it’s even worse…Libertarianfellowship.org? Didn’t know NAMBLA rebranded
You’ve got your armies mixed up there.
Ah right, thanks for pointing out my mistake!
When talking about army of kidnapped slaves I of course meant the one from the country where busification (act of violently kidnapping someone to send them to the meatgrinder, obviously against their will) has become “the word of 2024” according to a dictionary organization from that same country.
Would you be so kind to help me to identify this country, pretty please?Russia. They conscripted. They also ran out of them so had to empty prisons and use them. And when that wasn’t enough, conscripted again. And also enlist from overseas, offering lavish pay to Africans and Pakistanis et al for engineering and analytics jobs in the army but were actually sent to the front lines (so they’d die and not have to continue paying them).
A marked difference from conscription in defence of the homeland wouldn’t you say?
🤦♂
🤦
The reason Russia liberates no more than tens of km2 a day is because Russia has the advantage at multiple levels and therefore can afford to move more slowly, risk fewer casualties, gather better intelligence, and maintain a sufficiently responsive position in the case of surprise.
It is not to Russia’s detriment that they move slow they are choosing it.
