this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
642 points (94.6% liked)
World News
32353 readers
333 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everything you say about Russia is true, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a proxy war where US is trying to weaken Russia. You can just be against a senseless war that's killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying lives of millions more. Anybody who is even minimally engaging with reality can see that this war will only end one way. What the west is doing is prolonging it without changing the outcome. People of Ukraine are being cynically thrown into a meat grinder so that US can score a win in a geopolitical chess game with Russia.
I fully agree w/ you about NATO's obviously non-altruistic motivations for fuelling the war but I think the Ukrainian position itself has to be considered in the whole conflagration. Without that, we cannot really analyse when and how the war might end. For Ukrainians it's not the case they're being forced or deceived into fighting, it is a war of national survival! It is a war against an aggressor seeking to at the very least oppress Ukrainian national identity if not destroy it entirely as a political and social force. Even without western support the Ukrainians would have fought and Russia wouldn't have won straight away (because they already had a fair few weapons and the west had spent 8 years already reforming and rebuilding the army from 2014 onwards). The thing to remember is that urban combat is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for the attacker. To put it into context, a city the size of Kyiv has not been taken by an enemy against a committed defender since WW2! Taking a city the size of Kyiv or bigger, no battle lasting longer than 8 days (one of the battles for Seoul) has been won by the attacker. Consider the defences being set up for the capital-vast networks of local militia, booby traps and tank traps, every building and every basement being turned into a place for fighting. Russia would have to take this huge city street by street, building by building. This is an incredibly difficult feat. While Russia would obviously be doing a lot better without western arming, the war would still be going on and would be no less bloody. Even Mariupol and especially Bakhmut have been extremely difficult for both sides, Kyiv would be a whole new level, especially since it's the capital.
Then after that there'd still be the whole western half of the country where troops can, at the border, slip into Poland/Romania when needed. There are so many big cities in Ukraine that if they were committed to defending it, taking over the whole country would be insanely difficult. As I say, a committed defender has not lost an urban battle in a city the size of Kyiv since, like, the Battle of Berlin in WW2. It would require a total societal commitment to the war in Russia which Russians are not willing to tolerate. The current Russian Army is not up to the task!
Let's imagine, though, that the end of western support did bring about an impulse for peace within the current leadership. What do you think happens if Zelensky signs a peace deal that gives up land? He, a Russian-speaking Jew who used to be on Russian TV and regularly went to the country. He would be deemed a Russian traitorous Jew and would be overthrown and possibly killed by the nationalist and far-right elements within the Ukrainian Army who have gathered disproportionate strength relative to the actual support for fascist politics in the country since 2014 because of Russia's (yes, and NATO's) actions. Then the war would continue anyway, but likely with far less restraint against Russian-speaking citizens and Russian soldiers.
So at the minute there honestly is NO ROUTE TO PEACE because of the internal dynamics in Ukrainian politics both because the population believes the war is winnable and is committed at all costs to fight for their survival against the aggressor, and because there are spoilers within the Ukrainian state + army that have enough power to effectively 'veto' it. It is impossible to conceive of peace until there is a mutually hurting stalemate between the two sides in which neither believe they can win and in which both are deeply hurting in the status quo such that the value of continuing war is no longer high enough to justify the suffering. We are not there yet, so whether or not the west arms them is quite beside the point. Indeed, if anything it'd bolster Russia and make them less likely to make concessions for peace. Not that I'm supporting this that or the other arming of far-right militias (I believe any armaments should explicitly exclude Azov and such), but I do not believe the logic of bringing about peace held by many of my fellow Hexbears is correct.
Russia is not interested in conquering Ukraine. They're interested in goals like keeping Ukraine out of NATO, maintaining access to the Black Sea, and not having ethnic Russians who don't wish to be a part of Ukraine killed on their borders.
I disagree with this. No, I don't think Russia wants to 'annex' all of Ukraine per se, I think the original goal was to invade, quickly topple the government, then set up a puppet state which would be subservient to Russian interests. This would perhaps be combined with an annexation of much of the east. It was set to be a more successful version of Georgia 2008 (which from an operational level was a bit of a screw-up, but Georgia was weak enough that it went well enough anyhow).
Ukraine had signalled its willingness to stay out of NATO before the invasion started. Access to the Black sea was definitely an issue but not the primary war goal, hence why Russia initially directed its most intense attack towards Kyiv (it was not a feint, Russia dedicated a huge amount of manpower here and made an earnest attempt to sweep through the capital here). I think it's pretty obvious the Russian government doesn't care at all about ethnic Russians/Russian speakers as this war has made life a hell of a lot worse for most of them. Plus the accusation of 'genocide' against the Donbass was vastly exaggerated and a clearly cooked up justification.
What would you call the annexed regions if not conquered? “Liberated”? Get a grip
I would call them annexed. The people in them do not want to remain part of Ukraine, they're fine with being part of Russia, and that's the touchstone here.
Russia is not interested in conquering the whole of Ukraine, because most of the people in the western part do want to remain Ukrainian, not Russian.
Do you actually think the referendums were legitimate? In Crimea there likely was a majority who wanted to join Russia but even then the results were way higher than in previous polling. Plus Kherson and Kharkiv areas were and are not pro-Russian since the invasion and the referendums there were clearly falsified.
It's not a simple ethnic conflict and the majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not want to secede to Russia and do not support the invasion. It is harder to tell in the Donbass because of a lack of data but it is still true that Russia orchestrated the removal of independent-minded leaders for puppets from 2014-2018 or so.
I think a firm majority of people in the annexed regions want to leave Ukraine and are at least fine with joining Russia.
What evidence do you have for that? Asking genuinely not to be facetious. Crimea, yes, but the others I am not so sure. I am especially here referring to Kherson and Kharkhiv regions that were annexed as all data I have seen (I can dig some up if you'd like-do not have it to hand) indicates strong support for the Ukrainian govt against the invasion here even if they dislike the government itself.
My understanding is that while Russia annexed Kherson, they did not annex Kharkhiv.
I'm very confident the parts of Ukraine that have been trying to leave since 2014 mostly want to leave. I know ethnic Russians and Russian speakers are most heavily concentrated in the east, not just in the pre-war separatist regions but surrounding them, too. I'm sure war breaking out caused a lot of people who were on the fence to pick a side, and I can imagine someone who speaks Russian at home but wasn't radical enough to be part of a pre-war separatist movement throwing in with the much stronger country, that speaks their language, that doesn't have troops running around with neo-Nazi patches and flags.
What I've seen is breakdowns of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, which are predominantly in the east. I've also seen pre-war election results that show these eastern regions disagree with western Ukraine on national politics.
Sorry, I meant Zaporizhzhia. I am pretty muddle-brained atm as I have my increased anxiety meds dose recently.
Certainly some did, especially in the Donbass regions, but AFAIK never as much in Zaporizhzhia or Kherson-there is significant data to show that, while obviously Eastern Ukrainians have had a difficult relationship w/ the central government, they still opposed the Russian invasion and supported defence efforts.
Yes, you are right, but voting patterns show there is this polarisation between east and west Ukraine, but that does not ipso facto imply support for the Russian invasion, much less annexation into the Russian state. There is polling to suggest that even in Kherson, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and such, there was widespread opposition to the invasion and a 'rally-to-the-flag' effect had led to a temporary support in all regions (Donbass not included) for Zelensky and for the Ukrainian defence effort. As I say I can go digging for them if you'd like. I am not saying all Ukrainians hate Russian language and that there is no autonomist movements in the east, just that the data I have seen indicates widespread opposition to the invasion and annexations. However, there is a lack of data in the Donbass region so I simply do not know what people support or think in there as the L/DPRs were not democratic.
Ahh, the rare sane hexbear user I still have hopes for you lot you're definitely not as bad as lemmygrad.
However, let me add something:
You leave out the scenario of Russians getting kicked out of the country. Which is going to lead to Putin being sent to his Dacha, and if not and he somehow clings on Ukraine having all its territory opens NATO membership which means that the Russian general staff is going to shit bricks and rather putsch than attack.
He a) wouldn't do that and b) since when is Ukraine antisemitic you're confusing it with... pretty much all other countries in that area and c) you don't need to invoke far-right fucks (who are a tiny minority btw) the rest of the country would, well, send him to a Dacha.
And ever if: At that point we'd be in the situation many predicted in the first days of the invasion: Fall of the government, but Ukrainians then fighting a partisan war. And Ukraine right now is just in way too good a position to switch to that.
All in all, the way forward to quick peace is clear: Help Ukraine win this thing. It's both the best option from a direct humanitarian POV by cutting the war short, as well as the best option for wider humanity and the future: Not allowing states intending to conquer to get away with such behaviour. Discouraging wars of aggression is important by itself and one of the reasons why Ukrainians fight so hard, they see the universalism in their own national struggle it just all aligns so well.
“If we make sure every last Ukrainian dies, they will finally have peace”
Ahh, reading comprehension, in some places truly a luxury.
you are welcome. Since you are asking for more people to die than less people to die, and you say it’s for peace. I’ve decided simplifying your long ass post for everyone.
I'm asking for less people to die:
Because, you see, less people tend to die in a short war than in a long war.
Hence why I'm questioning your reading comprehension.
A short war with more intensive fighting. That's just throwing more people into the meat grinder.
Long-range systems can, *drumroll*, disable things from a distance. Right now Ukraine needs to get quite up and close and personal to overcome those lines. One of them incurs more casualties.
"To stop the meatgrinder we must meatgrind more people"
Indeed have you ever tried to stop a bulldozer you're not sitting in without risking spraining an ankle?
Your metaphor of stopping a bulldozer by throwing people at it does not convey the point you think it does
I'm talking about storming the cabin.
This is unviable. The best weaponry available to Ukraine was shattered against the Russian frontline-they can barely even take a few villages, let alone Melitopol, and let alone Crimea and the rest of the country! There is no indication that Ukraine has the strength to launch successful counterattacks. In Kherson and Kharkhiv Russia retreated for tactical reasons as their positions were undefendable-this is not the case w/ the current frontlines. It is utopian thinking.
No, I don't thjink he would.
"Ukraine" isn't a 'real'/reified entity, what I am saying is that the far-right has disproportionate strength in the Ukrainian army (and, to an extent, the state intelligence apparatus) because of the power vaccuum created by the 2014 invasion and the collapse of the pre-existing Ukrainian Army, then in 2022 because it was the best organised forces in the areas seeing the most intense fighting. While Nazis do NOT have much support among the population, the state still has a strong strategic-structural liability to these far-right groups...largely thanks to the actions of Russia!
Yes, I agree, which is why I don't think Zelensky will sign a peace. It is unviable.
I do not see how Ukraine can win this-even with western weaponry they have failed in their counteroffensive. What else do they need? Western boots on the ground is certainly not possible.
Ukraine send like two and a half Leos out to see if a frontal assault would work, and it didn't, so they didn't do it again. The vast majority of western systems are still intact and in any case: If things like MBTs and APVs don't get destroyed you're not using them. Things get shot at in wars and it's no secret that a direct artillery hit will kill any tank.
Meanwhile, though, Ukraine is inflicting heavy attrition on Russian artillery, as well as choppers. Don't let the lines on maps confuse you there's a lot happening that isn't visible there.
That would mean that all those people who joined since 2014, 2022 are far-right? Which would mean that the whole of Ukraine is far-right. Which makes no sense when you look at the election results with Svoboda having one seat in the Rada.
Ukraine built its army from 2014, recruiting ordinary people, training them according to NATO doctrine (giving status and independence to NCOs, mission command, such stuff), with NATO help, we sent like a gazillion of instructors. Many many Nazis left Azov after they were integrated into the National Guard, and the whole thing was actively depoliticised.
Are there still Nazis in Azov? Almost certainly. But the days of them dominating and openly running around with SS runes on their helmets are definitely over. Just as a side note btw Azov is and always was Russian-speaking, Ukrainian nationalism gets complicated.
No. Ukrainian generals have been very clear about this from the beginning: The offensive is going to drag on for a very long time due to the lack of materiel to do anything big. Conditions have improved somewhat with Stormshadow and Taurus is bound to come soon but Ukraine has no weapons with which it could just obliterate Russian artillery en masse which would then allow them to bring in slow and vulnerable materiel to clear minefields etc. to enable them to break through the line with heavy armour. They, as already said, have to slowly grind down Russian artillery where they can.
The other way would be actual air superiority. Dunno if those F16s will suffice to switch to full NATO strategy but it's certainly going to give the Russian side quite some trouble.
Speaking of NATO strategy that's probably the reason this impression exists: Yeah if Ukraine had a fully equipped NATO army they'd disable the whole Russian rear from the air, then parachute in armour to attack the Russian lines from the rear and the whole thing would be over in no time. The kind of not war but beating you saw on TV so many times. Like Operation Desert Storm. But Ukraine doesn't have a fully equipped NATO army, it's a Soviet-style army half-way switching to NATO doctrine drip-fed some NATO surplus.
Oh another tidbit: Russia mobilised all its reserves to the front, quite some while ago. Ukraine didn't they're rotating troops in and out. Which is why you see renewed conscription drives in Russia, which then poses the question on what kind of equipment they're supposed to be equipped with, not to speak of the additional instability doing that causes.
The reality is that Ukraine lost its sovereignty when the legitimate and democratically elected government was overthrown in a coup. That's when the war started between the regime in western Ukraine backed by the west and the east. Western media actually reported on this as well
I agree that at this point Ukraine is basically fucked. There was a possibility to make a deal back in March last year, but US and UK decided to sabotage it. Now, Russia will likely go all the way and there's not going to be an Ukraine left when this war ends.