• Tunnelvision [they/them]
      ·
      6 months ago

      Russia is doing extremely well. Victory has nothing to do with how much of an area you occupy.

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      you are measuring by territory, but attrition war suits their goal of demilitarizing the Ukraine more than holding land

        • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
          ·
          6 months ago

          This may be true in several years, but if I'm not mistaken, all sources indicate that NATO's already been bled dry.

            • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
              ·
              6 months ago

              They keep claiming they have what they need to destroy Russia, but 2 years into the conflict, it still hasn't shown up, and Russia is even stronger. NATO doesn't have anything else they can part with.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
              ·
              6 months ago

              UK admitted they have ammo for 3 weeks of warfare. German military is in shambles. French and Polish disarmed some of their units to send arms to Ukraine. US is not in such a great condition too, eating L after L from barely armed people like Taliban or Ansar Allah.
              Sure, they may be well armed but for usual aerial terror campaigns (because not even for naval now), but absolutely not for land warfare.

                • Tunnelvision [they/them]
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  If the United States had the capacity to make enough ammunition and ordnance to fight multiple wars at the same time, there would be enough people employed by these companies that you would probably personally know at least 1 of them.

            • Tunnelvision [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              It really isn’t. For nato to be well armed they would have to dump massive amounts of money into manufacturing and even then it would take years to get up to speed. We have every indication that the US has given from their own stockpiles. Not all of it, but there really isn’t old stock to speak of.

        • Droplet
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          deleted by creator

        • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          6 months ago

          That supply has long since started to dry up. All they get is below the rate at which they lose it. And they get less and less.

    • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      6 months ago

      The slow progress is very much intentional. Less casualties for Russia, more for Ukraine. The digging in also was intentional, Ukraine was very open about its planned counter offensive. Russia dug in and let them come.

      Don't get me wrong, there have been russian fuck ups, like, after the peace negotiation broke down, not taking into consideration that many contract soldiers might not renew their contracts.

    • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
      ·
      6 months ago

      It looks to me (I am not a reliable source) like Russia won the war immediately. There will never be a stable, western aligned government in Ukraine again. But there will be a huge buffer zone that keeps NATO far from anything Russia considers dangerous.

        • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]
          ·
          6 months ago

          There will never be a stable, western-aligned government again. There's never gonna be a stable, eastern-aligned government either. The rightwing coups will never end. Ukraine is destroyed for the working class. The bourgeoisie might have one last chance to sell out and move to the US.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          6 months ago

          How you propose to reverse or even avoid this? Keel up before nazis and allow for genocide in Donbas and another yeltsinisation of Russia? This time maybe terminal since west seem helbent on balkanization of Russia.