this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32087 readers
985 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia does not have the resources for that. A reminder this isn't a proxy war for them, even though it is for the West. Russia is there in person conventionally and is somehow losing to a minor Western ally.
The Ukrainians aren't going to run out of stuff within the next year for sure, and maybe not ever because even if the US gets bored Europe is highly invested. Russia has negligible productive capacity of it's own, and is bound to have serious problems eventually, unless they convince China to help and China has so far been uninterested. They could theoretically win by population attrition, I guess, but nobody's really talking about that yet. And, to do anything, they need political stability, after already having one mostly-failed coup.
Press X to doubt.
Could you link that? It goes against everything I've read and I can't find it myself.
Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization. Meanwhile, Russia losing the war would be an utter disaster for China. US is very openly trying to surround China militarily, and Russia acts as a shield in the west. The worst possible outcome for China would be the west managing to destabilize Russia and put a pro western government in power. If there was even the slightest chance that Russia could lose this conflict then China would step in.
Only if you believe your own propaganda, because none of that occurred at all.
None of what occurred? If you're gonna lie then at least lie about something that can't be easily googled.
I disagree. The Cold War is ancient history and China's probably just as happy carving up Russia as living beside it.
Give any example or argument that shows China would want to carve up Russia
More territory is good, if the opportunity would present itself this would make China stronger. They also don't want another Xinjiang they have to genocide, though, so I imagine they wouldn't actually annex much. Maybe just take back the old Qing cities and puppet the rest.
Like actual material evidence that China would want to do it and not just fantasy theory crafting in your mind
This is pure projection on what you'd do if you ran a country
US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren't as smooth as yours.
How are you defining "losing" here? They're occupying the separatist parts of Ukraine and can do so indefinitely.
Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev, and they've gotten fairly continuously further from that. Saying they're winning has "Mission Accomplished!" energy at this point.
They're occupying Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea if that's what you mean, although it's in question if they can do that or anything else including exist indefinitely.
Citation needed.
Here's a map of the invasion a few weeks in. Kiev (Киев if you can't read Cyrillic) is the capital of the nation. What does it look like they tried to achieve right off the bat?
Edit: Oooh, Wikipedia has an animation if it's still not clear.
Lmao, okay.
Well, there war goals were to protect Donbass, kill a shitload of Nazis, and de-militarize Ukraine. Plans change but it still looks like they're doing what they set out to do.
Ukraine is looking plenty militerised, and more pro-Western than ever.
There are a finite number of 18-35 year old men.
"Kill nearly every young man in Ukraine" is their main path to victory, but Russia has only about 4x the population of Ukraine, so they'll have to mind their casualty ratios pretty well. And avoid any more coups.
Presumably the young men of Ukraine will realize that throwing themselves on to the enemy guns is a losing proposition at some point before that but who knows?
According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.
Interesting you mention "Mission Accomplished" -- would you say the U.S. and its media did a good job of accurately informing the public about the War on Terror? Would you say they had good intentions?
What did they decide the Kiev thing was about? Was it a botched attempt at a decapitation strike to prevent basically everything else that happened?
It's very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:
The Kiev attack's goal appears to have been "disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them." I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn't happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.
Okay, sure. That fits.