Something about the smug announcement of how efficient the proxy war is chills my blood. :doomer:

  • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Me, an Enlightened Liberal: "The United States spent $40B/month for the last year. But if you take that number and divide it by the total money we spend globally, its actually a very small fraction. Therefore, this is money well spent."

    You, a Stupid Leftist: "What did the money accomplish?"

    Me: "We defeated Russia!"

    You: "Didn't the Russians just retake Bakhmut?"

    Me: "You don't understand anything about military spending."

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

      Bakhmut is actually the near perfect scenario for a bloodletting proxy war. Just absurd losses on both sides ("but the Ukrainians lost more!" so what) and no real change to the strategic/geopolitical situation.

      • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I understand it, this is one of those "I can't take X until I've secured Y" situations. So Bakhmut gives Russians access deeper into Ukrainian territory without risk of encirclement or direct bombardment.

      • edge [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        lmao you're basically just parroting the lib line of "Bakhmut has no strategic value".

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

          Most sources say it's a stepping stone for a stepping stone for one strategic goal, so... hell yeah worth it? Big L for Ukraine sure but the killing of military age Russians and the depletion of the soviet stockpiles will continue