As Russian President Vladimir Putin makes his first visit to North Korea in more than two decades this week, his focus is widely seen to be on securing ongoing support from the hermit nation for his grinding war in Ukraine.
The other comments explain it enough I think, I’d just like to add that I think there is a natural reaction to underestimate the North Koreans even among leftists, but imho I think the DPRK would do better in a war against the US in Korea than even the Russians in Ukraine. Just for comparison sake the Russians have been practicing the war in Ukraine for 30 years pretty much, but the DPRK has been practicing since the 1950’s.
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.
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.
A very large portion of American military doctrine is centered around avoiding overextension. US military stockpile information isn’t published but with their budget and emphasis on being able to fight a traditional war, imperialist projects and counter revolution at the same time, it’s safe to assume US stockpiles are still strong. Secondly, American military failure in those regions is more of a result of not knowing how to do counterinsurgency than a lack of material. Also the way the US fights land wars is through campaigns of aerial terror. You can’t separate the two when it comes to the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ukraine is only getting more Western aligned due to the war. I could easily see a Zelnsky dictatorship for a while. I don’t think they are ever joining NATO but they have only gotten more Western aligned recently.
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.
Dictatorships are perfectly stable. At present time the right loves Zelnsky and has no reason to coup. As long as the war continues Zelnsky is staying in power and in the pocket of the West. I agree with you on Ukraine being destroyed for the working class though.
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.
At this point, you can’t. Continuing support for Ukraine is the best way to worsen the situation and continue keeping Zelnsky in power and continue the meat grinder. If the West pulls out, two things are possible. One is that Russia continues to push West and try to take Kyiv which will lead to Zelnsky staying in power for as long as the war continues and a protected urban warfare campaign through Kyiv which will take Russia an incredibly long time to win. The other possibility is that peace talks happen and Russia keeps their controlled territory and ends the war. This is the best chance of a “good” outcome but anyone who gets in power, declares martial law and tries to retake lost territory is just going to become Zelnsky 2. Either way, it’s going to be a series of stable leaders (dictatorships) trying to cozy up with the West to defeat Russia. I don’t think there ever was the possibility of a good outcome here.
Maybe or maybe not, if AFU really does break at some point the occupation process might not be as hard as you think, and afterwards - we also heard it about Chechenya that Russians will be drowned in blood there but nothing of sorts happened.
The other comments explain it enough I think, I’d just like to add that I think there is a natural reaction to underestimate the North Koreans even among leftists, but imho I think the DPRK would do better in a war against the US in Korea than even the Russians in Ukraine. Just for comparison sake the Russians have been practicing the war in Ukraine for 30 years pretty much, but the DPRK has been practicing since the 1950’s.
Russia hasn’t been doing great in Ukraine though. The front has been dug in for months and Russian progress is a crawl at best.
Russia is doing extremely well. Victory has nothing to do with how much of an area you occupy.
you are measuring by territory, but attrition war suits their goal of demilitarizing the Ukraine more than holding land
Sure, they are depleting Ukrainian arms but Ukraine has such a steady supply of NATO arms that it’s almost impossible to make a dent.
This may be true in several years, but if I’m not mistaken, all sources indicate that NATO’s already been bled dry.
NATO has mostly given old munitions, not their main stockpiles. NATO still remains a well armed threat.
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.
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.
A very large portion of American military doctrine is centered around avoiding overextension. US military stockpile information isn’t published but with their budget and emphasis on being able to fight a traditional war, imperialist projects and counter revolution at the same time, it’s safe to assume US stockpiles are still strong. Secondly, American military failure in those regions is more of a result of not knowing how to do counterinsurgency than a lack of material. Also the way the US fights land wars is through campaigns of aerial terror. You can’t separate the two when it comes to the US.
And yet they are currently already overextended.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ukraine is only getting more Western aligned due to the war. I could easily see a Zelnsky dictatorship for a while. I don’t think they are ever joining NATO but they have only gotten more Western aligned recently.
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.
Dictatorships are perfectly stable. At present time the right loves Zelnsky and has no reason to coup. As long as the war continues Zelnsky is staying in power and in the pocket of the West. I agree with you on Ukraine being destroyed for the working class though.
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.
At this point, you can’t. Continuing support for Ukraine is the best way to worsen the situation and continue keeping Zelnsky in power and continue the meat grinder. If the West pulls out, two things are possible. One is that Russia continues to push West and try to take Kyiv which will lead to Zelnsky staying in power for as long as the war continues and a protected urban warfare campaign through Kyiv which will take Russia an incredibly long time to win. The other possibility is that peace talks happen and Russia keeps their controlled territory and ends the war. This is the best chance of a “good” outcome but anyone who gets in power, declares martial law and tries to retake lost territory is just going to become Zelnsky 2. Either way, it’s going to be a series of stable leaders (dictatorships) trying to cozy up with the West to defeat Russia. I don’t think there ever was the possibility of a good outcome here.
I’m more and more convinced least bad option is to just annex everything and try Chechenya method.
The issue with annexation is it requires occupation which is going to kill a ton of people.
deleted by creator
Maybe or maybe not, if AFU really does break at some point the occupation process might not be as hard as you think, and afterwards - we also heard it about Chechenya that Russians will be drowned in blood there but nothing of sorts happened.