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.
What? They dropped a bomb on 10 civilians getting water just a few years ago. This should translate to effective combat against a country with air superiority
For those who have only seen the headline:
Nearly three months into the counteroffensive, the Ukrainians may be taking the advice to heart, especially as casualties continue to mount and Russia still holds an edge in troops and equipment.
U.S. assessed Ukraine’s counteroffensive strategy and made recommendations, and now Ukraine is adjusting its strategy accordingly. The headline makes it sound like an endemic issue. Some analysts think it’s too little too late, but I wish them the best.
So ‘Bahmut holds’ wasn’t a viable strategy after all???
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?
The pentagon doesn’t even know where their weapons go once it lands in Ukraine lol
The US is calling for the Somme
Is this Ukraine’s war, or America’s?
Unnecessarily reductionist/antagonistic. If you had read the article, you would’ve known that the Ukrainians themselves agree with the point. And despite what the title says, the U.S. isn’t the only of Ukrainian’s western partners that thinks a change of strategy in order. This war might be fought primarily by the Ukrainians, but it’s also very clearly a collective responsibility of the western world order.
The truth will never be reductionist.
collective responsibility of the western world order.
ie- capitalist imperialism.
Such a bog-standard whataboutism that I couldn’t even be bothered to roll my eyes anymore. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Your welcome. My colors are red and black.
Both
American soldiers are in Ukraine? So we’re okay with Proxy Wars now? Further reading.
Can’t help but remember this article at this moment. And most moments. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/5/7344206/
This article reminds me how Russia could prevent the war by not invading. They can also stop war any time by simply going home. We should be clear on the fact that Russia is solely responsible for every single second of this war.
Remind me how you can stop bullying if you refrain from challenging the bully.
Why is NATO helping these guys if they can’t get their shit together?
“These guys” held their own against the supposedly second largest army in the world for quite some time before receiving any significant help, and has now, despite all the headlines, regained quite a bit of their own territory which was lost to the Russian invasion, despite the fact that current military technology clearly favours defense over offense (in a scenario without air superiority).
They have also severely depleted the Russian military capability and most likely hindered Russia in invading and bullying their other neighbours for a long time. All for the price of some old hardware that was gathering dust anyway as well as a fraction of a bloated US military budget.
There are better ways to spend the budget.
Why did the US support the Allies in early WW2 when France was overrun in 6 weeks and allied convoys got wrecked in the Atlantic?
Because the Allies paid the US with money for their arms? If NATO was selling arms to Ukraine, that’d be totally different.
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.
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.
You can finance this slaughter yourself, thank you very much.
I don’t know which country you think I’m from, but all the countries I have a citizenship in are financing Ukraine plenty.
I know, mine as well, which is a total shame!
You can finance this slaughter right now, or you can finance your own slaughter later.
Your choice.
Indeed, but I would much rather finance the other side…
why is nato helping a country fight russia?
Exactly!
Because it’s the right thing to do. Because they’re getting invaded by a fascist dictatorship.
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.
or it couldve been russia being such a shitty neighbor that ukrainians are tired of dealing with them. so ukraine has a revolution and turns westward.
who could figure out why when the country was being looted by putins puppet. or russia invades its neighbors many times before 2014 and 2022. why wouldnt they want to be another vassal state to russia again?
Would US cheerily let Mexico or Canada join e.g. Warsaw pact or present-day CSTO? I sure as hell believe they would intervene militarily. Look at what happened during the Cubon missile crisis. It puts the westoid rambling about ‘crazy Russia’ in a proper perspective, doesn’t it?
we wouldnt put them in a position to consider it. were all too reliant on each other.
That’s what Russia and Ukraine thought, until US started to interfere. It took them 20+ years to finally ignite the war.
right. so thats why russia invaded to “denazify” ukraine. sure buddy.
Kiev regime is openly nazi by promoting banderism and nazi ideology. They even have nazi insignia (wolfsangel) used for official military units. Not to mention nazi insignia running rampant in all sorts of units and even swastikas and balkenkreuzes on military vehicles and such.
