- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
Archive: [ https://archive.is/HwItY ]
You must log in or register to comment.
American officials’ criticisms of Ukraine’s counteroffensive are often cast through the lens of a generation of military officers who have never experienced a war of this scale and intensity.
U.S. Officials Say they Misallocated Ukraine’s Forces and Firepower
Title without the passive voice.
I think its definitely too early to say whether or not any particular element of either Russia or Ukraine's strategy in the war has been 'viable' at this point in time. The ultimate long-term effects of either side's major strategic decisions are probably difficult to understand right now even for the ones who have been making them, let alone for outside observers such as ourselves.
We can at least acknowledge that Bakhmut was the culminating point of Russian offensive operations in the Donbas. Would it have been the culminating point of their offensive if Ukrainians didn't defend it so fiercely? Who can say. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces were heavily attrited in the battle there - will this benefit Russia or Ukraine more? Who can say. There are 'conventional wisdom' answers to both of these questions, but the nature of the fog of war is such that even small, seemingly unrelated developments can drastically alter the valence of what was previously established as strategically advantageous for one side or vice versa.
Even when institutions dedicated to the study of warfare attempt to analyze utilized strategy X versus counterfactual strategy Y from some episode of military history, the debates are often unending. So can't you see how cringe it is to claim as a layman that it should've been obvious to a given commander (and at runtime, too, despite the fact that you're making the criticism with the benefit of hindsight) that strategy Z would have been clearly superior to whatever it was they thought was best, back then?
Can't help but remember this article at this moment. And most moments. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
It's not 'helping', it's using generations of Ukrainian men for draining Russian resources and manpower. US provoked this war and they want to prolong it as much as possible because it drains Russia and the EU.
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin! Then ask yourself what that means for Europe. Finally ask yourself what upheaval of a European market will do to an American economy and America’s ability to make its influence felt across the world.
Helping Ukraine is far cheaper.
I don’t know which country you think I’m from, but all the countries I have a citizenship in are financing Ukraine plenty.
You can finance this slaughter right now, or you can finance your own slaughter later.
Your choice.
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin!
Ask yourself if there is a possibility of Ukraine winning.
Did North Vietnam win over the USA? There’s a good communist counter-example for my hexbear comrades!
And also, whether Ukraine can win (probably not) is less consequential to Europe than it is to Ukraine. But the cost of Russia’s assumed victory is helping to determine whether Russia wants to try again, against another country.
I see a lot of geopolitical calculus in your response - to what extent is the influence of the US over Europe and European markets limited by a Russian victory. You present something of a US-centric point of view but sure it’s a valid one. If Russia wins then yes likely the geopolitical influence of the USA will be knocked back to where it was in the 1980s with true multipolar politics, and it’s also true that if Europe wasn’t sanctioning Russian energy then they’d likely be buying that much cheaper energy, thereby reducing the geopolitical influence of the USA over Europe.
So I think I agree with most of what you say. But your perspective leaves something very important out of the equation:
Where does the will of the people who live in Donbas and Lubansk and Crimea factor into your math? Do we respect their right to self-determination? If not, why not?
Well my answer was in reference to why it was in the US’ interest to pump money into Ukraine so it will invariably be US centric. I’m not American by the way.
The right of self-determination is important but it is not sacrosanct and unassailable. Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, Åland, Greenland - there are many areas around the world, where there is disagreement about where a region should belong. These are hard problems to solve, in some cases there’s been votes, in some places violent, minority resistance movements have arisen.
In no case has a region unilaterally declared independence and been invaded by a large neighbour. This just isn’t how we should play.
So if you’re hoping to use “the right to self-determination” as a justification for Russia’s actions, then I definitely reject that argument.
