There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Who's winning the war in Ukraine?

The media won’t give me great answers to this question and I think this I trust this community more, thus I want to know from you. Also, I have heard reports that Russia was winning the war, if that’s true, did the west miscalculate the situation by allowing diplomacy to take a backseat and allowing Ukraine to a large plethora of military resources?

PS: I realize there are many casualties on both sides and I am not trying to downplay the suffering, but I am curious as to how it is going for Ukraine. Right now I am hearing ever louder calls of Russia winning, those have existed forever, but they seem to have grown louder now, so I was wondering what you thought about it. Also, I am somewhat concerned of allowing a dictatorship to just erase at it’s convenience a free and democratic country.

Paragone ,

At the moment Ukraine is winning.

When Trump is crowned GEOTUS, after the Repubs win 2024 ( the economic rug-pull in 2024 will remove the Dems, through backlash-vote ) then the tide will turn, as the gutted remains of NATO/OTAN try to understand how to endure as the TOTAL global geopolitcs table got thrown, violently, on its side, scattering all the playing-pieces, all the indicators, EVERYthing gets flipped, then.

GEOTUS Trump will back Russia & Saudi Arabia, both.

Possibly China, as well ( he does have investments in China ).

The remains of the Western-cultures’ alliance are then on their own.

US Civil War Part2 will probably destroy about a quarter billion lives in North America within 14y,

and ww3 begins a mere 7y after Trump’s crowning ( +/- 1 year ).

Things are going to be VERY tough in Eastern Europe, with the US pouring its support into exterminating the former Soviet Bloc countries who oppose Putin/Russia, with the US backing Russia.

Wait & see.

It’s going to be hell, on Earth, for almost-all of this century.

The drastically quicker-than-simulated sea-level-rise isn’t going to help, particularly since Greenland’s meltwater will drown the North Atlantic coasts ( it takes 1000 years for it to redistribute to near Australia. The 1st few centuries it’ll be predominantly drowning the West ), and when you add enough water to raise the PLANET’s sea-level by 1 metre, but you put it ALL in the North Atlantic…

it may well be 3m around the North Atlantic, this century.

( there is a powerlaw underlying planetary heating, current atmospheric CO2 requires the planet to equilize at more than +5C.

When you add-in the anthrogenic methane, as CO2 equivalent, the planetary equalization temperature is more than +8C.

All the “+1.5C” and “+2C” are baseless delusions, contradicted by historical data of the last couple million years. )

Anyways, eyes-open, calibrate, prepare, & earn making oneself competent for what is guaranteed to come, right?

_ /\ _

WashedAnus ,
@WashedAnus@hexbear.net avatar

Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin shareholders. BAE and Rheinmetall investors are probably doing well, too.

Aria ,

The capitalist class in the USA is winning the war. Russia is surviving, and Ukraine is losing. The goal of the war is to launder as much tax payer money from working class USA and Europeans to the political elite and their friends as possible. They do this by purchasing weapons from their own capitalists using tax money. The capitalists then share the money with the bureaucracy that facilitates the money laundering. The secondary goal is to subjugate Russia, and failing that, hurt them as much as possible so that they can be subjugated in the future. Subjugating Russia is necessary because Russia’s military power is regularly used against the interests of the capitalist class in the USA.

DeathsEmbrace ,

Anybody in weapons manufacturing is the real winner of the Ukraine war.

JoeDaRedTrooperYT ,
@JoeDaRedTrooperYT@lemmygrad.ml avatar

“Defense” companies naturally.

crackajack ,

Well, you’re going to get different responses, many of which are good points, and depending on the person you asked.

But imo, it is hard to tell. And the best response we can say is: we don’t know. Ukraine retook many territories but so has Russia. Both sides suffered many casualties. The problem with analysing the war is the white noise coming from emotional responses on the events of the war happening at the time.

When Ukraine was invaded, everyone thought they will capitulate. They didn’t. Kyiv then retook Kharkiv Oblast, everyone thought Russia will surrender. The Ukrainian counteroffensive was hyped, but disappointed many. Prigozhin tried to coup Putin and thought it is the end of Putin, but they’re still here.

So, the best response to your question is, we don’t know. And that’s the most certain answer you could get and that is not a bad thing. For those who tend to forget, we still have the fog of war shrouding our vision. We don’t know what will happen in many months to come. Hindsight only tends to be 20/20 after an event.

However, I think the two major considerations for this year is 1. Ukraine had been effective in interdicting Russian logistical lines and sent the Russian Black Sea fleet reeling away from Crimea. Those are Ukrainian strategic gains that are often forgotten and not seen by the mainstream as important, who see ground combat as more important. 2. Though on the other side, the Russian support for Putin is still strong and either they support the war or ambivalent. In this case, Putin won the hearts and minds of Russians to either support or turn a blind eye to the conflict. Propaganda war is as important as military one to convince enough of the public to support it.

chemicalwonka ,
@chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

the Capitalism

Subject6051 OP ,

Ohh, cmon now! Seriously? You blame this on Capitalism?

galloog1 ,

The propaganda is strong against the Western system. There is an argument to be made that the origins of this conflict are in energy finds in the Black Sea. Ukraine is uniquely positioned to take advantage of access to the European and Asian markets. Competition in these sections would threaten oligarch monopolies. These energy monopolies are granted to the oligarchs by Putin himself and this is the entire basis of power in the Russian Federation.

This is simultaneously the reason for the conflict and why the oligarchs have been lock step the entire way.

It’s this capitalism? Absolutely not.

Is it economic power? Absolutely so.

neptune ,

The media won’t give you “an answer”. Is a war like a board game where everyone can see the pieces and count the score according to the rules? What is Russia objective? Idk. Are they meeting it? Sure, to some degree. At what cost? We’ll we only have a small sense of the costs.

Is Ukraine “winning”? Well they have lost so much but not everything. Are they meeting their objectives? We’ll their state didn’t fall. That’s good.

And you just want some OP ED at NYT to just sum it up like it’s a football game?

JoeDaRedTrooperYT ,
@JoeDaRedTrooperYT@lemmygrad.ml avatar

:100:

ginerel , (edited )
@ginerel@kbin.social avatar

I tend to think as well that the situation in Ukraine is currently a stalemate. The fact is that, while Russia is losing weapons, Ukraine is gaining them. There's also a different quality of life for Western weapons compared to the Russian ones because, well, that's something that the West actually cared for back in the Cold War days. USSR and its satellites only cared about meeting the 5-year quota, or whatever they cared for in order to show the West they were more industrialized and whatnot. Western weapons are also more accurate and tends to integrate more hi-tech inside, so that you can use them for one-strike-one-kill instead of carpet bombing large swaths of land until nothing moves there. This is why, e.g. you have Grad systems with around 42 projectiles or so, all usually being fired in chain, while on HIMARS you only have a maximum of 6 projectiles, which are usually fired individually.

All this now proves vital for Ukraine, as it has to fight a country with a larger manpower, a larger (pre-war at least) stock of vehicles and a larger stock of ammunition. Ukraine, however, did not manage to become a powerful force on the counter-offensive. It does a great job at hardening Russian attacks, causing incredible amounts of damage for every inch of land lost, but the required weaponry for a successful breakthrough has been in short supply. Besides that, what Ukraine initially planned to do was to do a combined arms attack. And you cannot do this without a good amount of air support - which Ukraine was and is currently lacking.

IMO, it remains to be seen what will happen when Ukraine will finally start to operate F-16 jets (among other equipment it started to build in-house like drones), but as of now, on the equipment and fighting side, Ukraine is currently winning. On the loss side, while Russia loses more people and equipment than Ukraine, I'm afraid the numbers are proportionally the same for both sides. This is why I see it as heading to a stalemate in the foreseeable future. But Russia can no longer win what it initially planned, it is constantly changing the objectives in order to show the world that it achieved something, and Ukraine simply cannot lose. Russia's only advantage right now is being on the offensive itself.

nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN ,

It’s considered a positional stalemate, and that is politically advantageous for Russia. Both parties have been able to set up considerable defensive positions, making progress extremely costly. Both parties are still fighting for progress nonetheless, where Russia has the most trouble achieving it and Ukrainian forces are making small gains (field by field) on a consistent basis. But knowing that the frontlinie is many miles deep and there is intense trench warfare to make a few yards progress… There will be no swift or decisive victory on either side.

Putin has most of his followers convinced that he is fighting nato backed nazis. So even when Russian war tactics are brutally inefficient and the losses in personell and equipment are enormous, there is little internal political backlash. Internationally the conflict is seen as a regional dispute. Since Ukraine isn’t a part of a large international alliance. Western sanctions on Russia aren’t as impact full as they could have been.

It’s looking likely that the war in Ukraine is going to last a very long time. With guerilla attacks on Russian territory becoming more likely and higher in frequency. Russia doesn’t have the equipment left for large scale invasions, doesn’t have the money to create meaningful reserves. And the kremlin needs defensive power in other places along its border.

European and western sentiment is that Putin will not stop until the old ussr borders are back under his control. And being securely and unquestionably positioned as world superpower.

blackn1ght ,

It’s stalemate at the moment. It’s a waiting game for Western support of Ukraine to drop or for something domestically in Russia to fail.

sunbeam60 ,

I’ve been following along daily, have an army background so take from that what you will.

I think Russia is winning the war, strategically. They are losing a small amount of ground, but there’s no breakthrough and every day that goes by in the current state is a day closer to a fragile peace deal that secures Russia’s winnings. I think anything beyond Krim is just buffer zone. This is fundamentally about securing access to ocean - Russia is extremely constricted in getting its navy to sea.

With a frozen war Ukraine won’t be admitted to NATO - in that way, I think Russia is content to have a frozen conflict, because it creates a weak buffer state between Russia and NATO.

So in terms of securing its desired outcomes, Russia is winning.

crackajack ,

I would disagree. It is still far from being able to tell with clarity if Russia is winning. Plenty of things could still happen. Somehow, we’re often forgetting naval warfare and focus too much on the army/ground level. Ukraine managing to turn the Russian fleet scurrying away from Sevastopol, as it had become too vulnerable for missile attacks, is no easy feat. And they killed the top Russian Black Sea officers (I’m convinced Admiral Sokolov is dead). This gave Ukraine needed breathing room to finally resume grain shipments, which could help Ukraine further finance the war and remove Russia’s stranglehold and ability to blackmail the world from accessing grains.

Although, how would all these translate to victory on land? Obviously, Ukraine will have more money coming in from exporting grain and other commodities. Might this allow them to buy more and better weapons? An option I see is Ukraine being able to intertidict Russian logistical lines, which they have proven to be pretty adept at. But the question is, would this lead to desired strategic successes and more immediate outcome desperately wanted by the West (we don’t need to know what Ukraine wants because they could keep going forever if they could)? Only time will tell.

Fishroot ,

The arm industry

CanadaPlus ,

Russia should have had the conventional phase all finished in a couple months, so by that measure Ukraine. Russia has also lost territory the whole way past the battle of Kiev, so by that measure also Ukraine. Neither look set to win any time soon, so by that measure (which is probably the important one) it’s a stalemate. The big variables now are Western support and Russian political stability as the conflict drags on. Neither side is close to running out of men.

The claims that Russia was winning the whole time come from basically the geopolitical version of flat earthers, who believe exactly the opposite of what everyone else does. Or actual Russian agents, but as far as I can tell that’s rare.

ICastFist ,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

I’d say the only ones winning are those selling stuff to Ukraine and Russia. I also remember a panel some months ago, about how the other EU countries will help rebuild Ukraine once the war is over. To me, it looked like they were already slicing the not even dead body in order to profit off it.

Ukraine as a whole is at a bigger loss, given all the infrastructure damage and population losses, this one counting both deaths and people fleeing the country.

lolcatnip ,

How is rebuilding a country equivalent to slicing it up?

wewbull ,

Slicing it up like slicing a cake. Dividing up the profits between themselves. Rebuilding a country doesn’t happen for free you know. There’s no depths to the debt the west can plunge Ukraine into over this war, unless we force Russia to pay. I hear they have lots of oil.

lolcatnip ,

What a terrible analogy. It implies that “rebuilding” Ukraine will actually involve destroying it just because people are paid to do the work.

ICastFist ,
@ICastFist@programming.dev avatar

Ukraine will likely lack the money to pay for the work for decades, so they’ll likely have to compromise with treaties and concessions beyond the reconstruction work. The more likely result will be a very weak government that’ll have to concede to several wants of the companies working there, who will use their money to put political EU pressure on Ukraine.

It implies that “rebuilding” Ukraine will actually involve destroying it just because people are paid to do the work.

You can only rebuild what has been damaged or destroyed and the companies that offered help see future profits going up with every building that crumbles. None of them are doing anything out of goodwill, they just see money to be made.

usernamesaredifficul ,

Russia. It’s a war of attrition and Russia has the manpower and industrial capacity

the west didn’t misread the situatiom because the west doesn’t care about Ukraine they just wanted to kill people

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •