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.

The West finally allowed Ukraine to strike back at Russia — and it seems to be working

Bankir and his men have been trying to fight off Russian attacks along the Ukrainian front lines for more than two years. But it’s only now that they are finally able to strike where it hurts: Inside Russia’s own territory.

The newly granted permission by the United States and other allies to use Western weapons to strike inside Russia has had a huge impact, Bankir said. “We have destroyed targets inside Russia, which allowed for several successful counteroffensives. The Russian military can no longer feel impunity and security,” the senior officer in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told CNN. For security reasons, he asked to be identified by his call sign only.

slaacaa ,

Breaking news: in a war, shooting back at your enemy works

ms_lane ,

Justin Trudeau in shambles.*

*there is no valid source for that quote

agressivelyPassive ,

Fake news! We should ask Ukraine for peace talks! Otherwise we might provoke Putin!!

Tattorack ,
@Tattorack@lemmy.world avatar

All Putin is doing is dropping a few bombs and staging a bit of an invasion, and everyone is talking about war. What has the world come to?

Womble ,

Look, Putin has been very clear that he wants peace. All Ukraine have to do is surrender and pull out of the quarter of their country that Russia has “Annexed” while not in control of. Then peace negotiations can begin as to what else Ukraine has to give up in order for the fighting to not resume.

(Note, not sarcasm, this actually the offer Russia has given for a ceasefire, not even peace terms)

Tattorack ,
@Tattorack@lemmy.world avatar

No way! Tell me more! What other great wisdoms are there?

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

What was working was bombing Russia oil and gas infrastructure with planes.

The only reason Russia has money for war is their fossil fuel production. But Biden banned that because it would drive up global energy prices.

As long as Russia has money to continue to manufacture and buy new weapons this will not change much.

Wes4Humanity ,

It’s almost like the war is not meant to be won

SlopppyEngineer ,

Everybody knew it would work. The critical part is actually “without Putin escalating with nukes.”

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

People keep saying this, but take the premise a little more seriously and it falls apart. Whom does Russia nuke, and in hopes of what outcome?

The only winning move is “nuke everyone all at once so far that nobody can retaliate, and then rule the world”. They simply don’t have that capability.

upto60percentoff ,

Ukraine?

Striking inside their territory won't matter all that much if they can just nuke Kiyv.

And breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe for everybody, regardless of who the target is.

Gradually_Adjusting , (edited )
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

It would not instantly win them the war - it more likely would provoke a direct response from Ukraine’s supporters. Further, Putin would have to go on TV explaining why it was necessary, given that state media has been shouting Russian military supremacy from the rooftops this entire time. I don’t see how he justifies it to his side, and critically, to the power brokers in Russia who support him. He would jeopardize his own situation with nukes, at least for now.

As all of the (nine?) nuclear powers know, normalizing the use of nukes on non nuclear powers will lead directly to massive proliferation, which is a nightmare scenario for Russia. Their entire geopolitical outlook depends on a world of purely bilateral agreements in which they are usually the stronger, so having to deal with more nuclear powers down the line would be seen as a major impediment.

RamblingPanda ,

I was absolutely certain Russia wouldn’t invade Ukraine, but here we are. I’m not ruling out anything just because it would be idiotic. Russia is past idiocy.

eleitl ,

I also thought they wouldn’t, but it was semaphored clearly well in advance and it absolutely makes sense given it’s West vs. rest of the world war with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea leading the pack. So far it’s a war of attrition the West is clearly losing. Let’s hope it won’t come to a nuclear escalation, where everybody is losing but Death.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Say instead that the best interest of the Russian state has been largely decoupled from the interests of its ruling few. Every country like that behaves in a way you could describe as objectively idiotic. 🇺🇸

Aceticon , (edited )

Actually their invasion made a lot of sense in light of the reaction of the West to their invasion and anexation of Crimea - they did the deed, then Europe and American bitched and moaned for a bit and after a few years things were back to normal and Russia was selling their natural gas and oil to them in greater quantities than ever before (remember how well things were with Nord Stream after Russia invaded and anexed Crimea that they were building a second one and how dependent Germany had made itself of Russia gas).

To me it seems that the whole plan was for a quick decapitation attack on Ukraine (using their armored convoy targetting Kijv from Belarus), then endure a year or two of bitching and moaning by the West, then back to normal just like last time.

The very different results were product of 4 big surprises:

  • The Russian Army turned out to be much worse than everybody thought, including it seems the Russian leadership.
  • The Ukrainians stopped the armoured convoy at Irpin. This was in part due to #1, due to the merit of the Ukranians themselves and also due to how effective the modern handheld anti-tank weapons provided to Ukraine by the West turned out to be against an armored fast advancing into enemy territory as a very long column.
  • Zelensky turned out to be a great wartime leader.
  • The West reacted far more strongly and assertivelly than last time around. This was because, due to #1 and #2, the beheading attack failed and Ukraine became seen as capable of holding off Russia, which together with #3 made the Western power were willing to “invest” diplomatic, military and even economic capital into helping Ukraine (and even then the commitment started slowly and is still slowly increasing - just look at how long it took to authorize them to use Western weaponry against Russia proper or getting them F-15s)

Before those things were actually known, it absolutelly made sense for the Russian leadership to think that a military invasion of Ukraine to take it over had a high likelihood of success.

AA5B ,

There’s probably also some twisted logic where you can think of Crimea differently - it has natural borders that Russia stopped at, they had a history of it using it for a major naval port, etc …… it’s easier to take the appeasement role when it looks like Russia had a stronger case and they will stop.

It’s a lot harder to make that leap when Russia flat out invades and the goal is subjugation of an entirely independent country. Even Putin must see the difference

Aceticon , (edited )

Judging by what I’ve heard from the actual Russian authorities over the years, even before this invasion, for Russians Ukraine was seen as a natural part of Greater Russia (remember, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union throughout its entire existence and even some leaders of the Soviet Union were Ukranian).

Even outside Russia you can see this natural acceptance of Ukraine as a place that Russia has a say over, in the arguments of traditional Communists, especially the older ones who learned their version of the ideology from Soviet Union propaganda.

Remember, Putin and those who surround them wouldn’t be reasoning from a Western European point of view, they would be reasoning from a Russian point of view and might very well expect that Western Europe would react to Russia’s invasion as being a natural clawing back of a region that broke away during a period of revolution (for which there is quite a lot of Historical precedent all over Europe).

I mean, if you look at the reaction of several European nations with regards to what Israel is doing in Gaza, a significant portion of the XIX century mindset (which includes Imperialism) is de facto alive and well amongst a significant portion of the European elites if often morphed in the whole “areas of influence” variance that justified US interventions, so it’s hardly surprising that a Russia whose leadership has that same mindset would expect that the reaction of European and in general Western political elites would be the usual perfomative theatre of “Freedom & Democracy” whilst not really doing anything when either is threatenned in “countries which are not like us” (and if you look at how German politicians reacted at the start of the Invasion, that seemed to be very much what they were going for).

PS: Mind you, I do think your point is absolutelly right when it comes to explaining the difference in reactions in the West. My point is that it seems natural that the Russian expectations about the reaction in the West, coloured as they were by their own mindset, underestimated the probability of the kind of reaction that did end up happenning, so the pros and cons considerations about “is it worth it?” before they actually went ahead and invaded, would have tilted more strongly than otherwise towards it being worth the risk.

Further, if Russia did succeed in their original target of a decapitation attack on Ukraine within 3 days, I very much suspect that the reaction on the West would be lots of bitching and moaning quickly followed within a couple of years by a “pragmatic” (read: driven by Economic interests) acceptance of the “facts on the ground” and return to normal.

GreyEyedGhost ,

The West reacted far more strongly and assertivelly than last time around.

This could he because they saw how WWII started and realized that the only smart move was stopping it before they built momentum. What surprises me is that Putin thought everyone would just let it happen in spite of the historical outcomes.

Aceticon ,

Yeah.

I would say that by the XXI century most of Europe (basically the EU and the nations mainly bordering EU nations) has transitioned to being used to Peace and using Trade power rather than Force for prosperity and to achieve its geopolitical aims, and the idea that Russia too had chosen to go with Peace & Prosperity through Trade was quite widespread.

Whatever XIX Imperialistic notions some Power Elites in Europe still have are only ever about “allied nations” (the US, Israel) with the victims being “people who are not like us” in far away lands, with the closest they get to practicing it being following the US into Afghanistan and Iraq.

So when Russia turned out to still behave as a XIX century warmongering imperialist nation, worse, against “fellow nations”, it was quite the wake up call.

I also suspect that the decades of warnings by Eastern European EU member countries about Russia over the last few decades didn’t entirelly fall in deaf ears and when some of those warning started looking like they were indeed right, this pushed the rest of the EU members and partner nations to listen to the rest of the warning coming from those nations, which accelerated the “We must stop Russia before it’s too late” reaction - I strongly suspects that an EU without Eastern European countries would have not at all reacted as forcefully and assertivelly.

Aceticon ,

Even from a pure geostrategic point of view massive proliferation has the most negative impact for larger nations rather than smaller ones.

Whilst nukes don’t really help in a war of conquest (they basically destroy the very land and resources that the war was meant to conquer), they’re far more effective for a nation defending itself - which if getting to close to defeat is highly likey to nuke the attacking nation - in effect nullifying the greatest advantage of the larger nations which is that they have the manpower and wealth to field much larger and more advanced conventional armies.

So even the likes of China would turn against Russia if they used nukes, because China itself does want to expand its territory or at least to control more natural resources (just look at what’s going on in the South China Sea) and if nukes were used offensivelly in a war of aggression it would lead to all the little nations around China to get their own nukes (along with everybody else) by which point China wouldn’t be able to bully them anymore.

And this is of course whithout even considering just how much more likely massive proliferation makes that we destroy part or all of our planet due to some otherwise shitty shit escalation or some nutcase getting control of a country’s nuclear arsenal, something which is bad for everybody, not just the larger nations.

Somebody using nukes in a war of aggression would see every single nation on the planet turn against them, especially the larger ones.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Yep. And they can’t afford to lose China’s support at the moment, though their interests are only temporarily aligned.

lepinkainen ,

This would instantly give Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia the excuse to allow nukes on their territory. Literally within 10 minute lauch+flight from Moscow and St. Petersburg

And that’s REALLY bad for Mr P

upto60percentoff ,

I'm not saying they'll do it, I'm saying it's incorrect to state that there's no valid strategic target when there absolutely is.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

The target you mentioned does tick that box… But only if you carefully cut the corners off so that you’re only looking at what happens inside Ukraine within the space of a couple of months.

eleitl ,

They could just take out logistics hubs like railway tunnels and the Odessa port, and destroy the rest of the power plants with few kT tactical nukes. Minimal direct casualties, but plenty dead in the aftermath.

lmaydev ,

They’d get absolutely flattened by everyone else. It would be an insanely short sighted move.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Generally speaking, nuking a next-door-neighbor is really bad for your own country.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Putin is waging a war of aggression, for conquest. Nuclear attacks would contaminate the land and reduce its overall value.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Putin is also not suicidal. And he has grandchildren.

He’s an absolute monster, but he’d have to be hiding in the bunker with Eva and the German shepherds before he pushed the button.

nutsack ,

or they could go to Argentina and just hang out

AA5B ,

At this point I don’t understand what he hopes to get out of it and how it could be profitable for him. Everything he might annex is a bombed out wreck and there are no longer the people that ran it. Even the existence of the harbor he wants to be a big naval base again: how could he expect that to ever be safe for the remainder of the fleet?

Even were he to win, he’s starting over with everything. Infrastructure, resources, people. When Ukraine wins, we will (hopefully) help them rebuild, but what is Russia going to do? Take out loans from Bank of China and dig themselves even deeper under a mountain of debt?

Appleseuss ,

He wants the port in Crimea for trade. Russia is a mainly landlocked nation.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

MAD wouldn’t be a thing in a first place if it weren’t for human spite, and the potential thereof. The ideal rational agents from game theory turn out to ignore it.

aniki ,

Baseless fearmongering.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The critical part is actually “without Putin escalating with nukes.”

It doesn’t even have to be a nuclear response. Russia still has plenty of conventional munitions to throw into this war and Ukraine still has plenty of infrastructure left to be demolished.

TheMightyCanuck ,
@TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works avatar

‘plenty of conventional munitions’

None that they’d be willing to part with, without creating some holes in their national defence structure.

Everything else has been sent to the front

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve been hearing this practically since the war started. “Russia out of ammo, Ukrainian victory is assured!” headlines have been coming out for years.

CanadaPlus ,

Yeah, I’m kinda glad it’s not my job to figure out. There’s no manual, you just have to read the mood of the Russian establishment about what looks like expected consequences of their actions delivered in an orderly manner, and what looks like a NATO first strike.

Lost_My_Mind ,

…this is news? I mean to the people calling the shots.

“Sir! We’re at war, what should we do?”

“Hmmmmmm…let’s try staying here, and only shooting the ones who get this far.”

“SIR!!! IT’S NOT WORKING!!! THEY HAVE ENDLESS SUPPLIES OF MEN!!!”

“Try blasting them inside their OWN territory…”

“Sir, it’s working!!!”

“Wait, that actually worked???”

Etterra ,

Gee no shit. Imagine that being allowed to wage the war in a way that could actually be successful is allowing them to be successful. Suck it Russia.

yournamehere ,

aw man, german weapons production has just started ramping up. and that failed assasination on german arms manufacturer really helped remove most red lines. russia is so doomed. germans dont stop until you tell them directly. US weapons stationed in germany is already massivly increasing. again: they wont stop until someone tells them. and that means there will be ammo&weapons.lots of it! the decision has been made. run russians. run.

TheBigBrother ,

Let’s see how much time pass until Ukraine ran out of cannon fodder. The real problem isn’t about weapons but about personnel capable to handle them.

AA5B ,

Sure, aside from valuing the citizens of Ukraine as people, the real crime in withholding the promised support is in the additional lives lost

Int_not_found ,

What are you basing this statement on? All analysis I have seen so far come to the conclusion, that the war is devastating on an humanitarian and demographic scale, but sustainable for years to come from an pure manpower & training-capacity pov. (Given historical data)

The same analysts suggest that the main reason for the current stalemate is the lack of weapon systems/munitions, that would enable a sustained breakthrough like artillery, tanks and air defense systems. Stuff that western allies hesitate or are incapable to provide in large quantities.

CanadaPlus , (edited )

Yep. Ukraine is also a populous country. It will be years before not having the theoretical manpower will be a problem, and if the K:D ratio passes 4:1 in Ukraine’s favour, Russia actually runs out first.

In the end it will probably come down to political will. Russia could dissolve into a mess of coups, the West could kind of just move on, the West could have internal problems that make it prohibitive to keep supplying Ukraine, or Ukraine itself could start re-evaluating exactly how willing it is to give up a bit of territory for the sake of peace.

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