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.
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.
This always blows my mind. American armaments are such white elephants, it’s all overpriced toys that take forever to produce. How on earth is it going to take years to catch up to demand? Meanwhile I’m supposed to believe that Russia ran out of tanks/ammo sometime in the summer of 2021
It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about the incentive structure. US military industrial complex exists to generate profit for the oligarchs. Making expensive weapons that take a long time to develop, and that require high levels of maintenance is a really good way to siphon as much tax dollars out of the system as possible. Since the end of the cold war, US waged wars on poor countries that didn’t have any serious military capacity. Having absolute technological dominance over the opponent meant that there was little chance of any of these toys actually coming under threat.
Oh yeah, for sure. The people who profit from this are doing great, and will continue to do so even once Ukraine is forced to the negotiating table.
I just find it funny to hear nato heads brag about how amazing our weapons are, and how Russia is going to be out produced by nato, and that arming Ukraine is a defense of democracy, but apparently it takes years to ramp up production? It’s so stupid.
Very much agree, western propaganda is becoming completely incoherent.
I’ve been thinking every time I see stuff like this, the U.S. army couldn’t deal with Afghanistan, and I guess that even goes back to Vietnam. (Though, the Red Army couldn’t deal with Afghanistan either, so I guess it’s more that regular armies can’t deal with protracted? guerilla warfare? too well? IDK). But also, any country that can deal with the blow from the first wave (i.e. everything they have at the start of the war, when they are fully stocked up) can probably just outproduce them?
The US army only really works on the traditional armies of over-exploited countries I guess.
The situation in Afghanistan for the soviets and Americans is not really as compatible with each other as people might think. The Soviet Union had to deal with rebels whom were continuously supplied with American weapons, and with some Wahhabi propaganda from the Saudi’s mixed in with some American anti-communist propaganda, you had 10,000s of volunteers fighting against soviet soldiers. The Soviets also fought to keep the entire country secured, even the countryside, which led to high casualties for both soviet soldiers and the mujahedeen.
Whereas the Americans were fighting the taliban, whom were a splinter group from the mujahedeen, and was busy fighting other mujahedeen splinter groups and the ‘democratic forces’ which the US backed, no one supplied weapons to the Taliban, no one single country endorsed ‘jihad’ to fight american occupation unlike the one we saw during the soviet war in Afghanistan. Yet the yanks still lost.
tl;dr the soviets didn’t fucking bombed the country daily killing civilians and children, went toe to toe with an entrenched and well armed and trained army
The Japanese couldn’t deal with the Communists either. Guerilla war is hard.
US weapons are literally not designed for a peer conflict because the assumption has always been complete NATO superiority. The last point where the US was worried about things like “cost” and “maintenance” was the final stages of the Cold War.
Exactly, US got complacent with having undisputed military dominance, and a peer conflict was never anticipated.
Redditors yet again cut off by their own sources lmao.
Not that they will accept it, i can already predict the comments if you post that on lemmy world news.
It’s been incredible to watch them dismiss the same sources they use as Putler propaganda whenever these sources say what they don’t want to hear. The meltdown that’s coming in the next few months is going to be absolutely incredible.
deleted by creator
Idk, if you mention Iraq nowadays they will just downvote you and never answer or cry whataboutism. That’s why i love when hexbear gets poured on them, the serial meltdowns are incredibly funny.
Or just talk about Gaddafi’s viagra as if our leaders would not sensationalise baseless claims for continued support for a war
deleted by creator
I read one paragraph and tapped out, pure
vibesHaha 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.
could someone get me up to speed on 19fortyfive as a source? where does it fit in the U.S. media landscape?
They are neocons
well yes, but when I try to put this to less informed peers I’d like a bit more juice than that
History Founded in 2020, 19fortyfive.com or 1945 is a conservative-leaning website that focuses on defense and USA foreign policy news and analysis. According to their about page, “We seek to hold no one ideology or opinion in favor. We are a non-partisan, non-factional publication. That means we publish a wide range of analysis, opinion, and reporting that is slanted to the left, right, and center. Accordingly, all of our writers and Contributing Editors come from very different backgrounds, many times disagreeing with one another vigorously.”
The website is transparent as they list writers and the editor as J. Beth Gorton.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership 1945 lacks transparency as they do not clearly indicate ownership; however, they appear to be owned by 19FortyFive Group Inc., based in Maryland. Advertising and sponsored content generate revenue for the company.
Source:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/1945-19fortyfive-com/#google_vignette
Basically the ownership is shady due to the fact that we don’t know who owns it but it published articles that are considered generally favorable to the MIC.
cheers :)
