A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Russian officials publicly assure the world that their invasion will only last 1 week due to their overwhelming military superiority.
109 weeks later without a victory, losing twice as many soldiers and equipment, Russian officials swear that the US, not an active combatant, is going to be so embarrassed.
I was watching an analysis on the 2023 progress of the war. The author said that while he acknowledges that Russia seems to have the favour making the war a stalemate and took more strategic, albeit small, locations than Ukraine did; this leads to Catch-22 for Kremlin that the more Ukraine struggles, the more money Ukraine will receive which is not on Russia's favour.
There's also the fact that Russia never really seemed to account for most of its monetary and material taps getting turned off. When you're (ALLEGEDLY) throwing conscripts out there without even a single full magazine of ammo, you're burning through old post-WWII ammo stocks, and constantly having to beg old SSR states "hey can we buy/borrow some of your tanks and APCs please," it doesn't look great.
Really?
Last I checked, we haven't had almost 500k casualties and lost billions in military craft to old mothballed weapons we since moved on from.
It's actually kinda incredible for Russia to have not realized that the US is literally just letting Ukraine integrate itself into NATO standards by training on and building up NATO standard equipment as it runs out of the shitty Soviet era alternatives
Meanwhile Moscow is instead developing a dependency on Iranian and Chinese made military hardware, stuff that neither is especially willing to part with given their own war plans.
The US could 1000% just barely provide enough aid to tactically let Russia chew its teeth out trying to break Ukraine, but it's sending what Ukraine needs to win whenever it can because the US sees Ukraine winning as more important than Russia losing at this point.
US is literally just letting Ukraine integrate itself into NATO standards by training on and building up NATO standard equipment as it runs out of the shitty Soviet era alternatives
Not just Ukraine, either! All the NATO Eastern Bloc countries donated their Soviet equipment (and much more) and are actively rearming and retraining their own militaries on NATO standard equipment.
Unfortunately "barely enough" is closer to the mark. Ukraine should've had this funding last year and we should've been close to the next round at this point. If this is actually all America can muster when it is committed to "winning" then then thats a bit sad and scary considering the incompetent broke ass country we are trying to beat while having homecourt advantage.
The only thing that gives me solace is the thought that this is carefully architected to bleed out Russia and not actually a show of real force.
exactly the fuckers say like usa is fighting there lol
Seems a little high. Russian casualties are probably closer to 350k according to Western estimates.
I wonder how many died though (edit: Ukraine claims 180k but their casualty estimates are reportedly high, so probably less than 180k dead)
By contrast, the United States lost fewer than 2,500 service members in the entire 20 years we were in Afghanistan.
The Kremlin warned that American support for Ukraine could turn into a decade-long folly, urging the U.S. to not oppose its invasion of the country as Congress appears set to pass a $60 billion aid package.
Buried lede: Russia thinks its "three-day special military operation to ~~de-nazify~~ ~~remove US biolabs~~ ~~de-NATO Ukraine~~ resurrect the Soviet Union" could take a decade. 😂
Also, they think they might need a decade to defeat a power that has a fifth of its military size, and which has, so far, roundly managed to make a laughingstock out of much of the Russian military.
Ruzzia knows all about humiliating fiascoes.
Especially in Afghanistan.
Ukraine wants the help. Afghanistan didn't. Also, the Soviet Union did a similar thing in Afghanistan.
funny that the Russkis mention Afghanistan 😅
And as always, as long as the cunts in Russia are complaining and riding their propaganda train at full speed, we are doing something right.
These brainiacs had concerts singing Gruppa Krovi from Kino to recruits early in the war. A literal Afghanistan-era Soviet anti-war anthem. They have no sense of irony.
The question is, which time Afganistan, when Russia had to get out or the US?
Was about to say, at least the US withdrawing from Afghanistan isn't literally a cause of the entire country collapsing into 14 smaller new states and also the entire western bloc
Tbf it kinda is, because if the US had gone into Afghanistan with a plan to help Afghani's fix infrastructure, homes, trade routes, etc things would have turned out far better than they did.
Hey Putin, remind me again how many days into your 3-day special military operation you are?
I mean he’s kinda right if we don’t just commit to fully helping Ukraine instead of waffling with every budget, bill, and election.
But him saying that is a good way to motivate stubborn Americans, so he can keep on saying it. It’ll get us going.
The Kremlin warned that American support for Ukraine could turn into a decade-long folly
If I were to bet, it would be that the US can keep this up for a decade more-readily than you can.
I don't think that this is going to keep going for a decade, though.
Russian industry produces 500 or 600 new tanks and maybe a little more than a thousand new fighting vehicles every year. The Russian military loses more than a thousand tanks and close to 2,000 fighting vehicles every year—and the loss rate is increasing.
There’s a gap—one the Kremlin fills by pulling out of long-term storage tanks and fighting vehicles dating back to the 1970s, or even the ’60s or ’50s in some cases. But these old vehicles are a finite resource. Built during the Soviet Union’s industrial heyday, they cannot be replaced with new production.
Ominously for the Russians, the most recent projections anticipate that, as early as mid-2025, there won’t be any more old tanks and fighting vehicles left in storage. “Time is running out for Russia,” wrote Artur Rehi, an Estonian soldier and analyst.
“Time is running out for Russia,” wrote Artur Rehi, an Estonian soldier and analyst.
That's the phrase we hear for years now. It shouldn't be taken into consideration. A country of 140mil and 1\4 of land that won't back off can fight for a very long time until it runs out of resources or people. After two years it sounds like a copium and a reason to just sit and wait, while another country's clocks are ticking faster.
Besides, isn't China already selling ammo to them? I could very well see China selling vehicles to Russia in large quantities, even on loan – and all it will take is Russia to become even more of a Chinese satellite state.
We tried sitting this out and it didn't work. Ukraine's new approach of actively making Russia hurt looks more promising.
Russia becoming essentially a Chinese satellite was always how this ended. The question is how much damage is done along the way and how well our nice little international status quo fares in the meantime.
Not China directly, but Iran and NK as proxies. Some Chinese banks stopped processing russian businesses' payments since the start of this year. They don't want to risk their 50% of market in EU and US over merely 3% purchases from Russia, so they themselves started to clean the room.
Well the other option would be a quick NATO operation against the russkis in Ukraine but for some reason no one want to take this route, so were kind of out of options here. I would favor a direct hit against Russia in Ukraine anytime. It would end this war quick, would cause a devastating blow against Putin and I personally think that Russia wouldn't use any nukes, as they are their life insurance and also their big bluff against the west.
Vietnam is a pretty darn poor example for them to be bringing up. A much poorer country fights for its independence against bigger countries with seemingly insurmountable advantages (first France, and then the USA). And by dint of sheer national sacrifice, sustained over 20+ years of fighting, manages to outlast the enemy. Don't forget also that the Vietnamese started from a vastly poorer and more backward position compared to the Ukrainians.
Also, northern Vietnam had support from greater powers in munitions and training (USSR, China). So, indeed, very analogous situation. Also USSR had its own adventure in Afghanistan. With the same analogy where now US supported … aghmm… Talibans and Al-Qaeda .
Hey HEY, it wasn't Al Qaeda it was the people who turned into Al Qaeda, completely different situation there Mr(s)
Russia lost in Afghanistan so, cool!
Nobody knows more about humiliating fiascos in Afghanistan than Russia.
so us support for ukraine will end up like when the us supported afghanistan. awesome.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Kremlin warned that American support for Ukraine could turn into a decade-long folly, urging the U.S. to not oppose its invasion of the country as Congress appears set to pass a $60 billion aid package.
The aid deal comes after months of negotiations, with support for Ukraine wavering among American conservatives as the Russian military gains ground after two years of fighting.
The House passed a broad foreign aid spending bill on Saturday that includes funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan for a total of $95 billion.
“With the boost that would come from military assistance‚ both practically and psychologically — Ukrainians are entirely capable of holding their own through 2024 and puncturing Putin’s arrogant view that time is on his side,” Burns said Thursday.
“Without supplemental assistance, this picture is a lot more dire, and there is a very real risk that the Ukrainians could lose on the battlefield by the end of 2024,” he continued.
The U.S. and NATO allies have refused to send their own troops to Ukraine, the fundamental difference between the conflict and those in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
The original article contains 295 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 38%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!