With All Due Respect to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, We Will Not ‘Shut Up’
www.19fortyfive.com
Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba recently delivered an unusually blunt criticism of Western analysts. Those who have argued Ukraine’s summer offensive has been “too slow,” the foreign minister exclaimed, should “shut up.” While Kuleba’s agitation is entirely understandable, the 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.

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.

  • zephyreks [none/use name]
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • zephyreks [none/use name]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • zephyreks [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • zephyreks [none/use name]
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                  • zephyreks [none/use name]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                      • zephyreks [none/use name]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        Your source is... the Atlantic Council? The same institution that's well known for being a US intelligence front?

                        The Atlantic Council's six fellows this year come from the Department of State, CIA, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Navy, USIA, and the Congressional Research Service

                        • CIA-RDP88B004443R000100550001-3

                        The Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Graphika all have inadequately-disclosed ties to the Department of Defense, the C.I.A., and other intelligence agencies. They work with multiple U.S. government agencies to institutionalize censorship research and advocacy within dozens of other universities and think tanks.

                        • Sworn testimony as part of "The Censorship Industrial Complex," given to the House Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                        The Atlantic Council consists of a bunch of warhawks keen on foreign interference:

                        STEPHEN HADLEY: If I were in my old job I would be thinking about lethal assistance – yes. But you know this is why you have a CIA, you know this is why you have covert action and I would be thinking – do we want to do it explicitly to send a message to Putin? Or do you want to do it covertly? You know I think we tend now to talk too much and act too little. And sometimes it’s good if weapons just start showing up on the battlefield.

                        Not to mention literally racist:

                        JAMES CLAPPER: And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique

                        Glad to know who I'm talking to, I guess. How's the weather in Fort Briggs this time of year?