this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
870 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2509 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.

Still, despite heavy losses of men and equipment, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to push forward as the war approaches its two-year anniversary early next year and US officials are warning that Ukraine remains deeply vulnerable. A highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive stagnated through the fall, and US officials believe that Kyiv is unlikely to make any major gains over the coming months.

The assessment, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday, comes as some Republicans have balked at the US providing additional funding for Ukraine and the Biden administration has launched a full-court press to try to get supplemental funding through Congress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 42 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

An unfortunate fact is that we're never going to beat Russia primarily by killing russians. Russians should be killed when they try to steal and rape our countries and peoples in order to immediately stop them from doing that, but the only way to properly win this is to somehow get to the leaders or their wallets.

[–] mob@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

While I agree with the sentiment, it's not like "we" are trying to beat Russia, right? Ukraine is defending itself. I'd imagine the story would be a little different if the goal was to beat Russia(like a full effort), rather than defend Ukraine.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This can be both, and it's CHEAP.

For less than 1/10th the direct cost of the Iraq war and at the cost of zero American servicemember lives we've set back Russia's military by decades, strengthened NATO, and actually done something positive for a change.

[–] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree from a purely American standpoint, but I’d caution against calling a war where Ukrainians are being so heavily impacted daily and Ukrainian soldiers are fighting and dying “cheap”. It’s an inexpensive investment in the security of the region and the world on the US’s part, but no war is cheap.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Those of us who believe Ukrainian lives and freedoms are worth preserving don't need convincing.

Those that think it's too expensive to do the right thing need to be shown that even when discounting the moral necessity of the relief, the return on investment is excellent.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Putin has declared that his "special operation" continues until all the goals have been met, and the goals are "demilitarisation, denazification and Ukraine's neutrality". The first two don't mean anything, and Ukraine doesn't want to do the third one. So if this stubborness continues, I cannot see any other way forward except "beat Russia".

[–] mob@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Oh yeah, and I'd imagine if something like NATO decided to take that path forward in the future, it would probably be possible to beat Russia by killing Russians. I also imagine it would be relatively quick tbh.

But for humanities sake, I hope they can put together a better, more surgical way to remove the cancer from Russia.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. The US technically can end the Russo-Ukrainian War any time it wants. All they gotta do is go "boots on the ground", but that carries problems of its own. Mainly that Russia is a nuclear power and Putin himself has said he's not afraid to launch.

[–] Ibex0@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

I don't care enough to risk American lives.

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

That insight makes the large loss of life in this war even more tragic. Fuck war. Fuck Putin for sending these men to kill and die.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I think the hope is that eventually things get bad enough for Russia that a revolution starts within. Because of the threat of nukes, Russia will only fall from its own population.