This is one of the first mainstream articles that’s openly talking about the fact that US is not going to keep supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes”
U.S. Administration has an obligation to unemotionally view the war as it genuinely is, not as we would wish it to be, and make decisions based on U.S. interests—which are not always identical with Ukraine’s interests.
It further admits that the offensive is a failure and Ukraine is unlikely achieve any significant gains regardless of what the west sends
The hard truth is that a sober analysis of both Ukraine’s three-month summer offensive and an assessment of the war overall leads to the conclusion not simply that the offensive is going “too slow” but that it appears unlikely to succeed. Arguably, it won’t matter how much time Kyiv is given, how many weapons it is provided, and how much ammunition the West delivers: completely evicting Russia from the territory it illegally seized appears to be a militarily unattainable aspiration.
There is finally an admission in the mainstream that prolonging the war simply results in more people dying and Ukraine losing more territory, an obvious fact that libs continue to dismiss and ridicule today
Without a change in policy, Washington’s approach is poised to condemn tens of thousands of additional Ukrainians to unnecessary deaths and reduce more Ukrainian territory to dust.
There’s finally an admission that Ukraine has at least 200k dead and wounded. While likely lower than the actual losses, it is a significantly higher number than what western media has been peddling up to this point
More critically, Ukraine has lost a conservatively estimated 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded, including tens of thousands who have had limbs blown off and an unknown – but likely massive – number of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
There’s also an admission that US inventory has dried up, and replacements will take years to produce
After the first 18 months of this war, the U.S. has contributed over two million artillery shells, thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of anti-air and anti-tank missiles. Whatever slack there was in our inventories has long since evaporated. Though we have started the process of expanding our industrial capacity to produce more arms and weapons, it will be years before we catch up to demand. The fact is, we will have to diminish our own military capacity to provide Ukraine with what it needs, harming our own national security.
Haha actually reading through these articles is often incredibly painful, but it’s amazing how many admissions they squirrel away once you cut past all the spin. It’s absolutely hilarious how mainstream libs dismiss these these things as Putler propaganda, but it’s right there in black and white in mainstream western media.
I mean it’s not putler propaganda, it’s just American propaganda for those in opposition to the war. The first claim doesn’t really make any sense. Why would this not suite the interest of the ruling class and the industrialized military sector?
These are a group of people approaching their 80s in many cases, they’ve been waiting to kill Russians since they were in grade school. Having Ukrainians do it for them is basically the best case scenario for them, you get to sell all the weapons you can without catching any of the liability.
Right, the prevailing message in mainstream media is that the war has to keep going no matter what. However, when you read it carefully, you can get a clear sense that things are not going according to plan and that Ukraine is getting used as a geopolitical pawn. Unfortunately, most people in the west are still convinced that the war needs to keep going and that Ukraine is going to win it, which means many more people are going to die before this is all over.
I don’t really think anyone capable of understanding realpolitik ever had any doubts that Ukraine is being used as a pawn. The surprising thing is to me is that Russia is taking the bait again. Even if they capture the entirety of Ukraine, what has that really done? They already had access to the black sea, they already have more resources and land than they can utilize. Why hamstring an already failing population rate and economic system with a prolonged ground campaign?
This is just going to be another Afghanistan for them.
If they hadn’t fought back then Ukraine would continue bolstering its Nazi troops unobstructed and cozying up with NATO. How is battling against that “taking the bait”? The West cornered Russia into a lose-lose scenario if anything.
My dude, what are you talking about? They’re the ones who brought a military into a territorial dispute, of course they’re going to be attacked.
Do you honestly think NATO wants a totalitarian war with Russia? Doesn’t that conflict with your idea that they’ll have to look out for their self interests soon? If NATO was ever an actual threat they would have had actual boots on the grounds months ago.
Territorial dispute? My understanding is that Russia intervened in Ukraine’s civil war on behalf of the Ukrainians who dissented their coup government. They didn’t step in to grab land (otherwise why would Russia recognize the LPR and DPR as sovereign?) but to put a stop to the bloodshed on their border. Also to ensure that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO or keep being Nazis.
No I don’t think NATO wants a war with Russia, directly. That’s why they’re using Ukraine as a proxy.
Ukraine would have invaded Donbas and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Russian speakers right in viewing distance from the Russian border. They would have installed NATO military bases and nukes (Zelenskyy said he would work on getting nukes a couple days before the invasion). Having a NATO military base on the land they are vulnerable from is not acceptable. Russia had no choice, they didn’t “take the bait” they were forced to
I actually don’t think so. Ukraine is significant not only for food security but for export to China. Russia sees the writing on the wall: it’s no longer a global superpower and it obviously can’t align with the West, so it needs to align with China.
China has a pretty long history of helping develop it’s allies’ countries with infrastructure and education and whatnot, so it’s really a win-win.
How does Ukraine play into this? Well, to maintain food independence for this new alignment, of course.
Also, because closer China-Russia ties will solve both countries’ demographic problems: the surplus of women in Russia and men in China are a perfect match, especially after this war.
Russia already has a huge agriculture export though, and the way global warming is heading it’s not like they’re going to have trouble finding more land.
They really won’t though… The vast majority of Russian women who fall within a surplus are over the age of 50, while Chinas surplus of men are primarily 30s and under.
The Russians occupied the Crimea so they could maintain their access to the black sea. They further invaded their neighbors as retribution for ousting the russian puppet government.
Melted Siberian permafrost doesn’t make good agricultural land and people don’t need to be the same age to form relationships. People aren’t inelastic.
You may also want to read more about the Euromaidan protests, their motivations, and their support: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
Jacobin is a left-wing news outlet that’s generally considered to be factually accurate by American media.
Or, you might consider that the US 4th PsyOps Group considers Euromaidan to be one of their great successes, as shown by a recent recruiting video and by their other promotional materials.
Russia isn’t just permafrost my dude… there are plenty of different ecologies where crops would flourish, but the growing season is too short to do anything with.
Somehow I don’t think importing millions of post menopausal babushkas into china will really help with the population crisis. You may not realize, but there is kinda an age limit on procreation.
I think that you and this particular article are conflating the motivations of the far right members of the Maidan Revolution with the entirety of the movement and the following establishment government.
Are their nazi and fascist in Ukraine, well yeah. Pretty much anywhere experienced Soviet or nazi occupation during ww2 is going to have reactionary paramilitary groups active in modern times.
That doesn’t detract from the fact that there were legitimate reasons for the people of Ukraine to overthrow their corrupt leaders. And it doesn’t detract from the fact that the fascist and radical paramilitary groups aren’t running the country.
I just don’t know why there are so many leftist tripping over themselves to do a character rehab on Russia. They are literally just a worse version of the US, crony capitalism and all.
Russian arable land in the North is just not very productive. A longer growing season won’t offset the lost productivity that climate change will inflict in the South.
You do realize that you don’t need to have a relationship with someone the exact same age as you, right?
The article does address your points, for what it’s worth. Plus, as established by first party sources, Euromaidan was orchestrated by the US with extensive propaganda support… which to any degree detracts from what would otherwise seem to be legitimate reasons for overthrowing government.