350
submitted 10 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 157 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Russian officials publicly assure the world that their invasion will only last 1 week due to their overwhelming military superiority.

109 weeks later without a victory, losing twice as many soldiers and equipment, Russian officials swear that the US, not an active combatant, is going to be so embarrassed.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

I was watching an analysis on the 2023 progress of the war. The author said that while he acknowledges that Russia seems to have the favour making the war a stalemate and took more strategic, albeit small, locations than Ukraine did; this leads to Catch-22 for Kremlin that the more Ukraine struggles, the more money Ukraine will receive which is not on Russia's favour.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

There's also the fact that Russia never really seemed to account for most of its monetary and material taps getting turned off. When you're (ALLEGEDLY) throwing conscripts out there without even a single full magazine of ammo, you're burning through old post-WWII ammo stocks, and constantly having to beg old SSR states "hey can we buy/borrow some of your tanks and APCs please," it doesn't look great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 120 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The Kremlin warned that American support for Ukraine could turn into a decade-long folly, urging the U.S. to not oppose its invasion of the country as Congress appears set to pass a $60 billion aid package.

Buried lede: Russia thinks its "three-day special military operation to ~~de-nazify~~ ~~remove US biolabs~~ ~~de-NATO Ukraine~~ resurrect the Soviet Union" could take a decade. 😂

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

Also, they think they might need a decade to defeat a power that has a fifth of its military size, and which has, so far, roundly managed to make a laughingstock out of much of the Russian military.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Let's assume Ukraine and all the funding it receives does delay it a decade and Russia eventually wins.

Isn't that still a resounding success delaying Russia by 10 years and crippling them from the extended war?

It might suck for Ukraine, but from a foreign policy perspective that's a success

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 109 points 10 months ago

Really?

Last I checked, we haven't had almost 500k casualties and lost billions in military craft to old mothballed weapons we since moved on from.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 79 points 10 months ago

It's actually kinda incredible for Russia to have not realized that the US is literally just letting Ukraine integrate itself into NATO standards by training on and building up NATO standard equipment as it runs out of the shitty Soviet era alternatives

Meanwhile Moscow is instead developing a dependency on Iranian and Chinese made military hardware, stuff that neither is especially willing to part with given their own war plans.

The US could 1000% just barely provide enough aid to tactically let Russia chew its teeth out trying to break Ukraine, but it's sending what Ukraine needs to win whenever it can because the US sees Ukraine winning as more important than Russia losing at this point.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Unfortunately "barely enough" is closer to the mark. Ukraine should've had this funding last year and we should've been close to the next round at this point. If this is actually all America can muster when it is committed to "winning" then then thats a bit sad and scary considering the incompetent broke ass country we are trying to beat while having homecourt advantage.

The only thing that gives me solace is the thought that this is carefully architected to bleed out Russia and not actually a show of real force.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

You have to remember that half of the political parties in the US are owned by and promote Russian interests. That's the only reason it took 8 months to get this funding approved, and it was approved in spite of the former fuckwit president.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 28 points 10 months ago

exactly the fuckers say like usa is fighting there lol

[-] BigilusDickilus@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

At the risk of being jingoistic, this type of opponent is exactly what our military is designed to utterly destroy. If the US was an active participant it would have very quickly wiped the floor with the Russian army and would be dealng with Russian backed insurgents in the east.

Ukraine has been beating them with the stuff we routinely throw away (when the Republicans don't get in the way), I am convinced they have no non nuclear answer to our actual military.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Seems a little high. Russian casualties are probably closer to 350k according to Western estimates.

I wonder how many died though (edit: Ukraine claims 180k but their casualty estimates are reportedly high, so probably less than 180k dead)

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago

By contrast, the United States lost fewer than 2,500 service members in the entire 20 years we were in Afghanistan.

[-] avater@lemmy.world 92 points 10 months ago

funny that the Russkis mention Afghanistan 😅

And as always, as long as the cunts in Russia are complaining and riding their propaganda train at full speed, we are doing something right.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 26 points 10 months ago

These brainiacs had concerts singing Gruppa Krovi from Kino to recruits early in the war. A literal Afghanistan-era Soviet anti-war anthem. They have no sense of irony.

[-] Gregonar@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Irony is caused by memory. Vodka solves that problem.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 82 points 10 months ago

Hey Putin, remind me again how many days into your 3-day special military operation you are?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 72 points 10 months ago

Yeah, Afghanistan was pretty embarrasing for the USSR

[-] Justas@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

Here's what stories I remember from USSR-Afghanistan war, told by actual veterans:

They would punish extremist acts by throwing women and children out of a helicopter, Pinochet style. The person who told me that drank ever since he got back from the war and never stopped.

There was one man who left his tent for a midnight leak and came back to his entire tent with their throats slit. Had insane PTSD.

My father-in-law got his legs messed up by machine gun fire, got airlifted to East Germany to get put back together, doesn't talk much, but still drinks a lot.

[-] AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml 15 points 10 months ago

You mean the one where the USA gave a fuckload of material and immaterial aid as much as they could to any radical extremist willing to hold an AK47?

Yeah, I'm going to put the USSR firmly in the "Right side of history" looking back at USA's shit

It's a very weird thing for the USA to be proud of

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 19 points 10 months ago

Wait, so you’re saying Russia is going to lose again?

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 20 points 10 months ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Holy shit. Just wow.

[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

I was just about to say Russia fucked up pretty bad in Afghanistan as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 64 points 10 months ago

Russian government spokespeople say lots of things.

Very few of them are true, or accurate.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

Oh it's a bit dumber than that. Russia tried to occupy Afghanistan in the 1980s and got fuckin romped worse than the US did and that was with peak Russian power and no near endless supply of Russia surplus for insurgents to use.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 10 months ago

They seem say whatever would be best for them regardless of truth, so you can't even rule out what they say like if they consistently lied.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 56 points 10 months ago

Ruzzia knows all about humiliating fiascoes.

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 44 points 10 months ago

Especially in Afghanistan.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tebbie@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago

Ukraine wants the help. Afghanistan didn't. Also, the Soviet Union did a similar thing in Afghanistan.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 42 points 10 months ago

The question is, which time Afganistan, when Russia had to get out or the US?

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

Was about to say, at least the US withdrawing from Afghanistan isn't literally a cause of the entire country collapsing into 14 smaller new states and also the entire western bloc

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

Tbf it kinda is, because if the US had gone into Afghanistan with a plan to help Afghani's fix infrastructure, homes, trade routes, etc things would have turned out far better than they did.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

The difference is that Vietnam and Afghanistan were civil wars. It's very difficult to win a war when a sizable portion of the citizens are fighting against you. Ukraine seems to be very united against a common enemy: Russia.

[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

if anything, even if Russia were to magically take Kyiv tomorrow, they are going to be fighting heavy insurgencies for decades to come. it'll be the Afghanistan war (the one wot killed the USSR) 2.0 on caffeine.

And they are no where near as economically or militarily strong as they were when the USSR was even at its weakest

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

He knows all about fiascos in afghanistan

[-] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 34 points 10 months ago

Because Russia had so much success against Afghanistan themselves. Pretty sure they've had their asses handed to them in the far east as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk 28 points 10 months ago

Russia says US support for Ukraine will end as ‘humiliating fiasco’ like ‘Vietnam and Afghanistan’

Of course that Is what Russia says. They were hardly likely to say 'That''s it, game over for us, we're withdrawing all our troops now.'

[-] shiroininja@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

I mean he’s kinda right if we don’t just commit to fully helping Ukraine instead of waffling with every budget, bill, and election.

But him saying that is a good way to motivate stubborn Americans, so he can keep on saying it. It’ll get us going.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Russia lost in Afghanistan so, cool!

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Nobody knows more about humiliating fiascos in Afghanistan than Russia.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
350 points (100.0% liked)

World News

41221 readers
2385 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS