this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
16 points (54.5% liked)
World News
32160 readers
739 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
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.
If D-Day was reliant on eight fighters being operational in June 1945, I don't think the chances of success would be very high.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/world/europe/ukraine-f16-jets-nato.html
Precisely the point. The allies had air superiority. Ukraine does not, therefore you cannot expect the same gains.
I would add that D-Day involved what, 200k soldiers? While the eastern offensive at that time involved 3.5 million soldiers.
Ukraine has what, a couple hundred thousand Russian soldiers? Blunting the initial offensive and signing a peace treaty was always the best option for Ukraine itself.
It was because of the Russian offensive that the Germans were defeated. Anyone with an interest in history knows that. Without Russia there was no beating Germany.
D-day landings were 175k men, the invasion force was a 3m strong multinational force.
I disagree that Ukraine should defer to a peace treaty, while the west supports them. It is western hardware that is making the difference. Ukraine knows this. It states it publicly and often. Russia are not making any gains against Ukraine now the Wagner have left the field. What Wagner committed in Bakhmut was unsustainable, and arguably the limits of where it was going to get to. Since Russia is nothing more than a crumbling obstacle now, why would Ukraine give ground to Russia. The Ruble has collapsed. There is dissent at the top now with daggers out for scapegoats. The damage Prigozhin did is still making its mark. All the war is doing is making Russia more and more indebted to China. China is happy to sell Russia arms to watch it destroy itself.
Russia's best outcome right now would be to be able walk away without incurring reparations cost for the carnage they have reaped. However, I doubt this will be seen as acceptable.
Sacking all of your recruitment officials (as Zelensky did days ago) is always a sign of imminent victory and definitely not a sign of desperate exhaustion. The Russians are (probably) waiting for the Ukrainians to destroy what remains of their armed forces on those impossible fortifications. Once this is done, Russia will retake whatever territory it has lost and snap up any land with a Russian-speaking population (Odessa for instance).
A bit of a stark difference between the belligerents isn't it. One has a corrupt army that cannot fight due to the restrictions that corruption that has caused. The other stamped on corruption when it was revealed. The only win Russia will see from this travesty is if they decide en masse to remove the corrupt blight that infects their country.
The Russian Federation and the government of Ukraine are both creations of the USA. Are you saying that we should bring back the USSR? Before you answer with the usual liberal nonsense, please google the terms “yanks to the rescue” and “Siberian intervention.”
What?
It was a 100 years ago. No one had any dealings with Russia for near fifty years between then and now. And outside of NATO Ukraine wishes to be in the EU, which is a competitor to the USA.
You don’t know what you’re talking about and should really sit back and listen when people who have spent years learning about these subjects discuss them.
The next few winters are going to be extremely cold. Get wrapped up and enjoy that discussion.
They'd have lost Kharkiv and Kherson if they'd done that. So clearly in hindsight that was not the best option.
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.
Now I want cupcakes. Dammit.
What invasion of the nazis in 1945 are you talking about?
You mean Allied advances into Germany?
Also can't deny that denys guy is far from an impartial source lol
OFC he is not impartial. The media articles he linked were partisan towards the allies mentioned in them. Even in their own press the allies were referred to as being slow. This was not seen as a criticism. Germany were seen as a formidable force to be reckoned with. The fact they were even moving in the right direction at all was to be commended. There was an understanding that the task was difficult, much like Ukraine removing Russia is now.
Not impartial as in, a Ukrainian propagandist. I purposfully avoid headlines like 'Russia DESTROYS recruits with LANDMINES. How would you trust a guy like that, right?
The reality on the ground is totally different than the situation in 1945, too. German industrial capacity, manpower, air force,... Were pretty much out of the picture. Showing headlines from the times back then only shows you how it was being reported on.
O aye, can you link to that headline?
I respect him as a voice of reason