This is one of the first mainstream articles that's openly talking about the fact that US is not going to keep supporting Ukraine for "as long as it takes"
U.S. Administration has an obligation to unemotionally view the war as it genuinely is, not as we would wish it to be, and make decisions based on U.S. interests—which are not always identical with Ukraine’s interests.
It further admits that the offensive is a failure and Ukraine is unlikely achieve any significant gains regardless of what the west sends
The hard truth is that a sober analysis of both Ukraine’s three-month summer offensive and an assessment of the war overall leads to the conclusion not simply that the offensive is going “too slow” but that it appears unlikely to succeed. Arguably, it won’t matter how much time Kyiv is given, how many weapons it is provided, and how much ammunition the West delivers: completely evicting Russia from the territory it illegally seized appears to be a militarily unattainable aspiration.
There is finally an admission in the mainstream that prolonging the war simply results in more people dying and Ukraine losing more territory, an obvious fact that libs continue to dismiss and ridicule today
Without a change in policy, Washington’s approach is poised to condemn tens of thousands of additional Ukrainians to unnecessary deaths and reduce more Ukrainian territory to dust.
There's finally an admission that Ukraine has at least 200k dead and wounded. While likely lower than the actual losses, it is a significantly higher number than what western media has been peddling up to this point
More critically, Ukraine has lost a conservatively estimated 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded, including tens of thousands who have had limbs blown off and an unknown – but likely massive – number of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
There's also an admission that US inventory has dried up, and replacements will take years to produce
After the first 18 months of this war, the U.S. has contributed over two million artillery shells, thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of anti-air and anti-tank missiles. Whatever slack there was in our inventories has long since evaporated. Though we have started the process of expanding our industrial capacity to produce more arms and weapons, it will be years before we catch up to demand. The fact is, we will have to diminish our own military capacity to provide Ukraine with what it needs, harming our own national security.
I read one paragraph and tapped out, pure
vibes
Haha actually reading through these articles is often incredibly painful, but it's amazing how many admissions they squirrel away once you cut past all the spin. It's absolutely hilarious how mainstream libs dismiss these these things as Putler propaganda, but it's right there in black and white in mainstream western media.
Removed by mod
Right, the prevailing message in mainstream media is that the war has to keep going no matter what. However, when you read it carefully, you can get a clear sense that things are not going according to plan and that Ukraine is getting used as a geopolitical pawn. Unfortunately, most people in the west are still convinced that the war needs to keep going and that Ukraine is going to win it, which means many more people are going to die before this is all over.
Removed by mod
If they hadn't fought back then Ukraine would continue bolstering its Nazi troops unobstructed and cozying up with NATO. How is battling against that "taking the bait"? The West cornered Russia into a lose-lose scenario if anything.
Removed by mod
Territorial dispute? My understanding is that Russia intervened in Ukraine's civil war on behalf of the Ukrainians who dissented their coup government. They didn't step in to grab land (otherwise why would Russia recognize the LPR and DPR as sovereign?) but to put a stop to the bloodshed on their border. Also to ensure that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO or keep being Nazis.
No I don't think NATO wants a war with Russia, directly. That's why they're using Ukraine as a proxy.
Ukraine would have invaded Donbas and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Russian speakers right in viewing distance from the Russian border. They would have installed NATO military bases and nukes (Zelenskyy said he would work on getting nukes a couple days before the invasion). Having a NATO military base on the land they are vulnerable from is not acceptable. Russia had no choice, they didn’t “take the bait” they were forced to
Removed by mod
I actually don't think so. Ukraine is significant not only for food security but for export to China. Russia sees the writing on the wall: it's no longer a global superpower and it obviously can't align with the West, so it needs to align with China.
China has a pretty long history of helping develop it's allies' countries with infrastructure and education and whatnot, so it's really a win-win.
How does Ukraine play into this? Well, to maintain food independence for this new alignment, of course.
Also, because closer China-Russia ties will solve both countries' demographic problems: the surplus of women in Russia and men in China are a perfect match, especially after this war.
Removed by mod
Melted Siberian permafrost doesn't make good agricultural land and people don't need to be the same age to form relationships. People aren't inelastic.
You may also want to read more about the Euromaidan protests, their motivations, and their support: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
Jacobin is a left-wing news outlet that's generally considered to be factually accurate by American media.
Or, you might consider that the US 4th PsyOps Group considers Euromaidan to be one of their great successes, as shown by a recent recruiting video and by their other promotional materials.
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
Removed by mod
Russian arable land in the North is just not very productive. A longer growing season won't offset the lost productivity that climate change will inflict in the South.
You do realize that you don't need to have a relationship with someone the exact same age as you, right?
The article does address your points, for what it's worth. Plus, as established by first party sources, Euromaidan was orchestrated by the US with extensive propaganda support... which to any degree detracts from what would otherwise seem to be legitimate reasons for overthrowing government.
Removed by mod
Russian soil in the North is inferior because it's thin, has few nutrients, and tends to be acidic. Chernozem is Russia's most productive soil and it's predominantly concentrated in the south of the country. In fact, it's the same soil that makes the Canadian Prairies so productive.
Again, do you not understand that people don't need to have relationships where ages match?
What corruption (more than usual for Ukraine) was there in Poroshenko's election? Weren't there literally thousands of international observers for that election? Similarly, for Yanukovych's election, where was the impact of this so-called interference? International observers were once again present and found no evidence of such wrongdoing. If you go back to 2004, the government had mechanisms to protect against explicit corruption (in case you forget, Yanukovych ended up losing that election in the re-run). Which of these governments are you calling illegitimate because of Russian electoral interference?
Removed by mod
Ah yes, because crop rotation in the shit show that is northern soil would go so well. Where's the evidence? Many Canadian soil science experts have written off the promise of boreal land: the soil would take decades if not centuries to rehabilitate.
Meanwhile, you don't seem to understand that even small age gaps create marginal imbalances that need to be filled, which (if filled by small age gaps again) leads to a knock-on effect down the population pyramid.
Every government has corruption. Are you surprised by this? In an example that you will understand, US elections are horrendously corrupt because of rampant gerrymandering and no restrictions on corporate PAC donations. However, people still consider US elections to be "fair" and "just." Ukraine's elections have been no more corrupt than they usually are, which I proved to you and am happy to provide more sources for. To which point you... moved the goalposts with no evidence. At least put some effort into your argument, please.
A lack of evidence is either a lack of intelligence or deliberate bad faith.
Removed by mod
Your source is... the Atlantic Council? The same institution that's well known for being a US intelligence front?
The Atlantic Council consists of a bunch of warhawks keen on foreign interference:
Not to mention literally racist:
Glad to know who I'm talking to, I guess. How's the weather in Fort Briggs this time of year?
Removed by mod