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 crazy 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 https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
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.
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.
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.
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 crazy 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.
Why is that?
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
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/6/graham-blumenthal-introduce-resolution-to-address-threat-of-russian-tactical-nukes
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 https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
It’s now been a month, and Ukraine has failed to reach even the first line of Russia defences while suffering horrific losses.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/27/25-tanks-and-fighting-vehicles-gone-in-a-blink-the-ukrainian-defeat-near-mala-tokmachka-was-worst-than-we-thought/
The offensive is going so poorly that even CNN calls it disappointing
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/ukraine-counteroffensive-western-assessment/index.html
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
https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-darkness-ahead-where-the-ukraine
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.
Yeah. They value their stuff so much. Particularly their own soldiers.
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.
Really? They also once had a hydroelectric dam. Just don’t post…
You mean the hydroelectric dam that even US admitted Ukraine was launching missiles against? Just don’t post…
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.
Watching empire shills trying to interact with people outside corporate walled gardens is pretty hilarious.
Are you watching me now, comrade? Prove it.
You’re not my comrade.
It’s not their own territory
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.
No position to take any territory back? How about the 300km^2 they took back already this summer?
Oh you mean the territory Russia didn’t actually contest because they haven’t mobilized yet. Amazing counterpoint you’ve got there. 🤡
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”?
Don’t engage. He is a useful idiot and very determined.
While you provide a fascinating arm chair analysis of the situation, why don’t we just look at what people who actually have a clue on the subject say
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.