The comments in the article are spot on. NATO, the US, and the EU have failed at ending the war. They are way too fucking slow. They could be ramping up production like in war times and helping Ukraine, but none of that is happening. Ukrainians are dying daily and have been for 2 years, yet they lack proper support. It's just enough to keep them going, but not more while the suits just count their money and spout platitudes.

"We must defeat Russia". Fucking arm Ukraine to the teeth then, you dumb pigs. Sanctioning Russia is barely making a dent on the frontline.

[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 36 points 4 months ago

Ukrainians are dying daily and have been for 2 years...

You mean since 10 years, when Russia invaded Crimea.

[–] Doom@ttrpg.network 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A perspective that must be understood is they do not want a total Russian collapse that would be worse. If Russia falls apart like a total defeat would cause then you'd have migrations and far more violence than now with infighting and likely warlords picking up Putin's remains and fighting for whatever is left.

They want a grinding war that ends up draining Russia so the people are sick of it and surrender not the government. Which is a much harder thing to do.

Blowing up Putin and the Kremlin is like blowing up a porta potty, shit everywhere. They'd rather it slowly melt away like snow.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Not to mention several regions under control of some of the current power rokers but then they have their own nukes.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago

Keep hitting those ammo factories

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 29 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It'd probably be bad in terms of global stability and whatnot, but it'd still get a chuckle out of me if China just went "Well, It's free real estate" and invaded russia.

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

China wants Taiwan. While some land in Russia might be nice it isn't a big deal. They like Russia getting away with attacking Ukraine because it sets a global precedent that large powers can take over weaker powers.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

That's not entirely true. China also likes a weak Russia that's selling them raw materials underpriced. They like this destabilisation, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I mean, Russia hasn't succeeded though, been sanctioned by many nations, and lots of nations are supplying gear to the defenders. That's not really "getting away with it" and I'm not sure it sends the message to China that you think it does.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They dom't have to be successful to be used to normalize taking over weaker powers. The world not actively opposing the attempt is still normalizing.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The world is actively opposing the attempt though.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

Maybe I should have said directly or militarily.

Yes, they are actively supporting Ukraine through training and supplying arms. They are not actively opposing the occupation with their own troops directly on the battlefield.

[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

What it implies is that China must be better prepared. It may not be a cake walk in the same way Russia or would be, but do long as China is well prepared for the invasion, it will help smooth things over.

[–] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 1 points 4 months ago

I know, but a man can dream.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

They don't need to invade if they can turn it into a de facto vassal state.

[–] golli@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

The question is if they actually need more land or just more resources. I imagine they already get the latter for dirt cheap, so why bother actually invading.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"To sustain real offensive operations, we think that Russia would have to secure significant ammunition supplies from countries beyond what it is already getting from Iran and from North Korea," the source noted, adding that a new wave of mobilization would also be necessary.

...

According to the source, Ukrainian defenses have improved significantly, albeit also suffering heavy losses. It will take some time before Kyiv accumulates enough resources to launch its own counter-offensive, the official noted.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It seems like attrition might be the way to go. Offensives are expensive and risky. If the Russians keep throwing troops in to the meat grinder why not just let them

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ah the WW1 strategy.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Going back to the classics

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

History doesn’t exactly repeat itself, but it does echo.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

Because attrition tactics can still work when one side has far more bodies to throw at the front line.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The thing is, I'm not sure whether we have troops and ammo for any sort of defensive in Ukraine. I would like to hope that with foreign help we can outlast russians, though

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The US can by practical means drive Russia out of whatever Ukrainian territory they wish, anytime they wish, and covertly if they wish.

The US goal isn't to win quickly. They'll drag out the war to drain the resources of the enemy. It's Afghanistan again, except:

power disparity is greater and more transparent
backlash similar to Afghanistan is likely avoided with NATO membership

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As long as it hurts russia, I'm in. But I'd also rather not have so many of our people dead, soldiers or civilians

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Inadequate.

Military-Industrial Complex

The US allocates a lot of money to defense. The spending boosts the economy. Capitalism requires increase in consumption to support mandate of economic growth. The weapons must be consumed such that more can be produced.

A proxy war allows the consumption of weapons without the publicly-objectionable consumption of American lives. A proxy war can be artificially extended for an economic boost.

Afghanistan

However, the people of the nation fighting with US weapons will eventually figure out the scam. They'll get really fucking righteously angry and have no viable means to communicate. They send a message by running airplanes into skyscrapers. So, we consume more weapons.

Ukraine

The US will avoid the consequences of a proxy war by recruiting the victims into NATO.

Winners

The only people winning are the stockholders of US defense corporations.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's only partly true. Its half of what America wants, but you completely ignore that there are other actors and factors in the situation.

No matter how much weapons Ukraine gets, it's still better for them to get a few than none.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That's only partly true. Its half of what America wants, but you completely ignore that there are other actors and factors in the situation.

If I provide a synopsis you'll simply expand the scope once again. Good faith would've been listing those factors and why they're important.

No matter how much weapons Ukraine gets, it's still better for them to get a few than none.

I provided reason for my position. You've a thesis statement.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I hoped I don't need to list other actors and factors as they are pretty obvious.

You provided reason? Lol. What are you, a comic book character? Relax. You wrote down a classic America-centric far leftist opinion that has been around for 30+ years. Nothing worth repeating.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

As long as Ukraine is supplied weapons, the rule of thumb is that Russia looses as many troops as the pre-war population of the city/place they are trying to take over. So they would need 38 million troops to take over Ukraine.