Imagine genuinely thinking that Russia blows up their own infrastructure for no reason. The fact that this is a serious topic of discussion in the west shows that any sort of critical thinking has been eradicated at this point.
But… Zaporizhzhia is currently in the status of “temporarily occupied”. It’s on Ukraine’s territory. Since we have to suspend belief because all data we’re getting is propaganda, the possibility that it’s going to be liberated cannot be ruled out just like that.
Ukraine stands to lose much more from a nuclear disaster inside their own borders. That they would do that just to get NATO to act more seems more like a conspiracy theory.
As far as Russia is concerned, Zaporizhzhia is Russian territory and there is no chance of Ukraine actually recapturing it. Anybody who thinks that Russia would cause a major nuclear disaster on their own territory is beyond reason.
Ok, so let’s say both sides think it’s their territory, so neither will want to cause a nuclear disaster there. That seems like a good balance for everyone else on this planet, for the time being.
there is no chance of Ukraine actually recapturing it
Ok, so let’s say both sides think it’s their territory, so neither will want to cause a nuclear disaster there. That seems like a good balance for everyone else on this planet, for the time being.
The difference is that Ukraine is now entirely reliant on the west to continue fighting. This creates incentives for Ukraine to continuously seek escalation that could potentially get NATO directly involved in the conflict. Incidentally, US senators already introduced a resolution calling for NATO involvement in case of such an incident
Because that’s obvious to anybody who’s been paying any attention to what’s been going on for the past two years. This ultimately comes down to manpower and logistics. Ukraine has far less people than Russia, and the west lacks the industrial base to continue supplying Ukraine at the current levels. This is well documented in western media by the way.
This was also understood long before the war started. Here’s what Obama had to say back in 2016:
The reality of the situation is that the west gave Ukraine everything they could for this offensive, and it will not be possible to replace that in the near future. The offensive was supposed to make a decisive breakthrough in the first 24 hours. In fact, this was critical for any sort of success foreignpolicy.com/…/ukraine-russia-war-counteroff…
It’s now been a month, and Ukraine has failed to reach even the first line of Russia defences while suffering horrific losses.
The most likely outcome here is that Ukraine will burn through their men and equipment, and once the offensive fizzles it’s likely that Russia will go on the offensive of their own against a demoralized and depleted Ukrainian army.
John Mearsheimer has a pretty sober analysis of what can be expected to happen realistically that I highly encourage you to read
Ukraine currently is claiming that a victory would mean that Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk are all liberated. But is that actually required? They’re fighting an existential war, where a complete loss would be that Ukraine stops existing as a separate entity, or at least as an independent entity.
So perhaps a peace agreement where they lose significant amounts of territory would be still be a “victory” for them. It certainly was for Finland in 1944. You can compare what happened in Estonia before their independence from Soviet Union to see how that is true.
Also, Vietnam. War of attrition there was able to completely counter USA, a much more powerful military power. Although admittedly not a regional military power.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war because now that Russia has committed itself to military action they’re not going to settle for the status quo. Best case scenario for Ukraine at this point is that there’s going to be a rump state left in western Ukraine where nationalist sentiment is the strongest. Meanwhile, Vietnam is actually a good analogy, but with US deciding to drop support for western Ukraine once they realize the war is not winnable.
All the hard work you put into spreading nonsense is wasted in Lemmy. There aren’t enough users to make it worthwhile. Then again, you’d be banned quickly somewhere like Reddit, so I guess it’s your only choice.
It’s literally territory they’ve annexed from Ukraine. And anybody who actually paid attention for the past month can see that Ukraine is in no position to take any territory back based on how their offensive is going.
They have mobilized 300,000 troops last year. It’s news to Russia that they didn’t contest it, since they fought for and lost Pyatyhatky, just now fighting for and losing Zherebyanky.
There are intense battles in Orikhiv area, but that could go either way. If Russia loses anything “they are not even trying”?
Why should I believe those people? Who made them experts?
Watch the actual developments on the ground, don’t listen to propaganda. Russian telegram channels tell you how the war is going, don’t need a guy to pretend to know the future
Why should anybody believe people who have been studying geopolitics all their lives is the question you’re asking?
Unlike you guzzling propaganda out of a firehose, I am watching the actual developments on the ground. The developments are that Ukraine failed to reach even the first line of Russian defence after a month long offensive while suffering horrific losses. Those are the facts of the situation. The fact that you don’t understand this says volumes.
People who study things have the best idea of what’s likely to happen in the future by virtue of spending the time to understand the domain they study. Maybe if you spend the time learning about the subjects you opine on then you too will be able to make a coherent argument in the future. Consider doing that instead of trolling on internet forums.
No, even if you study all your life, it won’t let you predict the future. People study stocks all their lives and they still can’t beat a simple stock index in the long term. So stop listening to articles that make wrong predictions.
Like Mearshimer who in 2014 predicted Putin had no further territorial ambitions in Ukraine. Yet Putin annexed further regions in Ukraine, despite this “expert” studying stuff.
If you don’t understand how expertise allows people to make better decisions than people without any experience in the subject there’s really nothing else to tell you. Good news is I don’t have to convince you of anything, the reality is going to become clear even to you soon enough.
I’m questioning his expertise. Every time he says “Russia wouldn’t do that” Russia does it. And he is still considered an expert despite several claims of how Russia:
Wouldn’t try to annex more of Ukraine after Crimea (did it)
Could only have limited military aims in Ukraine (went straight for the capital)
The rest of the former Soviet republics would support Russia (big oof, everyone but Belarus refused to support Russia)
At this point, you just have to say he’s gotten everything wrong, but continues to double down
I mean you certainly sound like an expert on the subject qualified to question his expertise. I also love how you disingenuously ignore the context of what he said and when he said it as if the state of the world has not changed over time. You’re free to live in whatever fantasies you want, but sooner or later you are going to have to reconcile them with the real world.
Mearsheimer is not a military expert, so he has no idea how the war will turn out. Even if we accept he’s an expert on politics, the actual situation on the ground will affect the future more. I’d rather listen to what generals say
U.S. Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin retired after 20 years of service, including eight years as an armor officer with four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and 12 years working as a modeling and simulations officer in NATO and U.S. Army concept development and experimentation is a military expert though, and he gives a pretty similar assessment www.russiamatters.org/…/whats-ahead-war-ukraine
Not really sure which generals you’re listening too, but I haven’t seen a single serious military person say anything even remotely close to what you seem to think is happening.
ISW is not a serious publication. It’s a neocon think tank that consistently got everything wrong from the start. If that’s what you’ve been referencing then I see why you’re confused. Meanwhile, we already see what’s possible and not possible given that Ukrainian offensive has ground to a halt and failed to make any meaningful progress in around a month now. If you can’t understand what an utter disaster this is from Ukrainian perspective then I really don’t know what else to tell you. This summer will indeed clarify a lot of things for people.
Sure more than Ukraine who’ve been throwing theirs into minefields. If they didn’t value their soldiers they’d be doing what Ukraine is currently doing. Instead, they spent the time building defences and training their troops.
I got Apollo quite late into its lifespan so the newer one I’m definitely more attached to. Wanna do a little drawing of Apollo (prob the more recent icon) as a late tribute, as well - been meaning to learn how to draw and this would be the perfect motivation, might start next week when I’ve got time.
On a more serious note, your tablet might just be too old. Reddit’s official app requires Android 8.0+, while Joey only requires on Android 5.0. So that might be the reason why.
lemmy.world
Hot