As far as I can tell, this prolifically posting account has literally never posted an article that wasn't negative on Ukraine, and posts about 90% negative on the West in general. For whatever that's worth.
I guess Washington Post is Russian propaganda now...
I didn't attack the source. I just pointed out that someone posting more than most on lemmy could push a certain point of view using any and all sources if they cherry pick.
Posting "90% negative on the West in general" is still softballing it.
But yeah... still lots of pro-Russian propaganda flowing around here.
Unfortunately Russia's strategy of mining the front so heavily it won't be safe for a hundred years is proving pretty effect at slowing the Ukrainian advance. I hope the rest of the world never lets up on the sanctions. Russia is a fucked backwater that loves war crimes. They need to be punished.
Denys Davydov did video on these type of comments about a week ago. He dragged up a lot of newspaper front pages of the invasion of the Nazis in 1945. There was a ton of articles stating just how slow the move was going. An attacking force is always going to have a hard time against a very entrenched enemy. You also have to remember Ukraine does not have a good air force until they get those pilots trained up for the F-16. They are making gains and are knocking on the second defence line in two areas. Any gains Russia has made they loose 2 days later, with the exception of Bakhmut.
And another important thing to bear in mind is that the start of the advance is the hardest part of the advance. Russia has built up a thick crust of defensive lines. At some point the advance penetrates that crust, and then the gooey center goes much more quickly.
And what is wrong with Ukraine not just bashing its head into russian defenses and instead go for a slow-and-steady approach? They still have reserves to spare, word is Ukraine is rotating its troops on the front regularly. So as long as Ukraine can keep up the pressure and russia not being able to stop their slow advance, they will be successful eventually. Would another Kharkiv thrunder-run be preferable? Surely.
But russia is prepared this time. And instead of being all doom-and-gloom, the West could step up its commitment to see Ukraine win. Apart from artillery shell production, weapon manufacturers still see no increase in weapons procurement. It's time for the West to let actions follow its words on support of Ukraine. As long as their words ring hollow, Putin only has to wait and eventually outpace dwindling western support.
Ukraine is fighting for their existence, russia is fighting for the oligarchs. Ukraine will prevail.
Quick, throw more money on the fire!
The problem is that Ukraine is given enough not to lose, but not enough to win. At this rate, Ukraine will depend on western hand-outs much longer than if the West fully committed to see Ukraine restore its borders.
That's the point. The West doesn't want the war to ever end.
Then it's up to the people to demand more support from Ukraine.
Absurd. America has already given $75 billion in "assistance" to keep this war going, imagine if that had been spent on people who need it in America? And you want to spend even more than that??? Every bomb is food stolen from the mouth of a hungry child.
About 24 billion is non-military financial aid and 4 billion more is humanitarian, so that's a big chunk not being spent on bombs. Slightly more than half of the remainder is the estimated value of old stock being sent over and therefore could not be "spent" on assistance for Americans anyway. The remaining 23 billion that is actually money spent on equipment and training is less than half of one percent of annual federal government expenditure. Weapons for Ukraine are not the reason money isn't being spent on what you want it to be spent on.
What is your plan than?
What should the west do?
Let me guess, you have no alternative that does not boil down to "Let Putin and people like him do what they want."
Negotiate an end to the war. I'd support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
Let's assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?
I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.
Fundamentally, I still don't understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.
Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?
America broke it first with the Belarus sanctions. The real question is if Russia can trust America.
And it can't, so I guess the war will never end. We'll argue about it for the next 20 years.
But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.
If the UN vote monitors detect manipulation then they call it off. Simple.
You’re consistently framing this as a war between the USA and Russia. It is not. Russia invaded its neighbor(s) and held sham referendums. Negotiations must happen between Ukraine and Russia. Nobody else. Since Russia currently doesn’t even acknowledge the right of Ukraine to exist I do not see this happening soon.
I have read all of your dozens of comments. You are trying really hard to twist the words of every comment you’re responding to everywhere in this thread, until people loose interest and you can have the last say (mission accomplished?). Your replies are structured to look like counter-arguments but they don’t even address the actual points you‘re quoting. If there is nothing else left to say you simply fallback to „[…] but the USA/the West“ - irregardless of context. There is no way to argue with you in good faith. Knowing this I still think it would be wrong to have you regurgitate the imperialistic propaganda here that you‘ve apparently felt victim to without saying anything at all.
You’re consistently framing this as a war between the USA and Russia.
He does that because he knows Russia was wrong to invade, can't admit it and needs to make bullshit up to sustain his world view.
As everyone seems to say: Tankies gonna tank
Negotiate an end to the war.
Russia refuses to give back the lands seized.
Now what to you do?
I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
Not an option the Ukrainian gov will accept. Nor should they.
When parts of the USA wanted to leave that was not response from the USA.
I don't expect Russia to give back lands seized. I expect the will of voters to be respected by both sides.
The Ukrainian government will accept any option we give them. They're our puppet.
When parts of the USA wanted to leave that was not resonance from the USA.
That sure as hell wasn't democratic! It's not like Black people got a vote.
I expect the will of voters to be respected by both sides.
We are talking reality here not what you want.
That has already been rejected. It is not an option.
Again: Russia will not leave, Ukraine will accept nothing but a return to the pre-invasion 2014 borders.
What do you propose?
Rofl. You expect russia, whos already announced putin has won his next election, to respect the will of the people.
Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as well? I got the title right here.
Sorry, but as if. Russia is a UN veto power. And Russia would never accept UN troops sent by the West to oversee anything. And african nations won't want to piss off Putin by agreeing to this. Putin wants his anti-NATO back and this war will only end with Putin thuroughly defeated.
Not to mention that such a vote would be a farce anyway. Russia has had enough time to kill, torture, intimidate or disappear enough people that such a vote could never be fair.
And as for the money spent on Ukraine, it's but a cheap talking point to suggest that supporting Ukraine and supporting your own population are mutually exclusive. Not to mention believing that if the money wouldn't have been spent on Ukraine, that your own people would've seen that money is pretty delusional. For starters, most of the support sent by the US is hardware. And the given value for that support is the replacement cost for the kit sent. However, most of the kit sent was due to be replaced anyways, so the actual cost for the US is much lower than the figure being thrown around.
Better than the tankie method of using lives instead!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ukraine appears to be running out of options in a counteroffensive that officials originally framed as Kyiv’s crucial operation to retake significant territory from occupying Russian forces this year.
Meanwhile, a war weary Ukrainian public is eager for leaders in Kyiv to secure victory and in Washington, calls to cut back on aid to Ukraine are expected to be amplified in the run up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
“The question here is which of the two sides is going to be worn out sooner,” said Franz-Stefan Gady, a senior fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Center for a New American Security, who visited Ukraine in July.
Sak, the adviser to the defense minister, said the slow progress clearing extensive mine fields along the front is preventing Kyiv from engaging the majority of its Western-trained reserve forces.
Ukrainian forces have retaken roughly 81 square miles of occupied territory since the counteroffensive began in June, with the greatest gains occurring near Bakhmut in the east and in the Zaporizhzhia region south of Orikhiv.
The Biden administration has “very successfully” managed risk of a direct conflict with Russia by gradually providing Kyiv with more advanced weapons systems and longer-range munitions, said Kelly Grieco, who researches air power operations as a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a D.C.-based policy group.
The original article contains 1,338 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc