614
Ukraine tells critics of slow counteroffensive to 'shut up' (www.reuters.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
1156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

billions of dollars of western equipment and they recaptured a dozen villages.

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want and have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want

    This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before.

    ...have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

    I don't mean to deride your analysis, but I also do wonder how much analysis some random Hexbear user can really make. I mean, I can look at maps of assessed control from the ISW and I hear about what goes down in some of the more nationalist Russian telegram channels but I deliberately try to avoid anything that makes me sound knowledgeable in military strategy and tactics.

    I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before

    This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

    I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

    Even the Ukrainians are talking in that article about how hard it is to breach the Russian defences. The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages. It is ridiculous to assume the side with less soldiers, lacking air superiority, and ran by the most corrupt nation in Europe with vast amounts of support being resold by Ukrainian generals has any chance of defeating the larger power. Early in the war Ukraine had an advantage as it's soldiers had in violation of the Minsk treaty been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to Kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

    The "special military operation" to Denazify Ukraine was not intended to be limited solely to the East. Russia tried to replicate the US operation in Iraq, and had they been successful, they'd be in a very similar position to the US after toppling both Iraqi and Afghan leadership relatively quickly, stuck propping up government with limited popular support. Also, what about everything about NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's prospective membership? That has nothing to do with injustices against Russian-speaking people.

    The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages.

    This is literally the opposite of what the article says: "Some [Western analysts] faulted Ukraine's strategy, including accusing it of concentrating its forces in the wrong places." Sounds to me like they emphatically NOT making a rush at the targets the West wants them to.

    8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

    Right, just like how that Ukrainian counteroffensive is gonna start any day now.... Its warfare. Neither side is honest about their operations, and neither side can afford to be honest about their battle plans, tactics, and strategies in order to actually make use of any of them. When Russia invaded the rest of the country, it was their modernized army that was gonna make quick work of the smaller weaker Ukrainian army. Even NATO was like "uh yeah we expect a protracted guerilla war after a quick Russian victory should Russia actually invade".

    For the record, I wasn't sure if Russia would actually invade, despite all the classic rhetoric that came from the Kremlin the year beforehand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ukraine needs to get within artillery range of certain major logistical hubs to hamper Russian reinforcement and supply via the southern corridor. And it is close, now. The Russian administrators of Melitopol have already abandoned the place.

    With ATACMS, this would have been easier, fyi.

    Only people who don't understand the situation repeat the sort of thing you are claiming.

    Furthermore, the US aid to Ukraine was mostly stuff that was destined to be decommissioned. The "billions of dollars" is on paper, not in fact. Nothing Ukraine is receiving from the USA is current gen or in use by the US and therefore isn't diminishing the US armed forces. Arguably it's actually increasing US strength, since the USA is now ramping up artillery shell production.

    From a strategic standpoint, destroying the Russian military (estimated around 50% of Russia's MBTs and Airforce) in exchange for stuff you weren't going to use anyway is a bargain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    no one wants them to hit those places with artillery if the Ukrainians start using American artillery on Russian cities the Americans will have kittens

    Russia has nuclear weapons which means there is a line that can't be crossed with regard to dealings with them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's all about plausible deniability. The US didn't want to arm them with anything that could reach Moscow and hit Russian territory in general, but the Ukrainians have developed the ability to do so on their own, so now US officials I think are more willing to discuss these things, since it can't be directly traced to them (since now Russia can't prove it was specifically American armaments or equipment used whenever it gets hit inside it's territory).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    but the Ukrainians have developed the ability to do so on their own

    no they haven't they're using artilery equipment we gave them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    no they haven't they're using artilery equipment we gave them.

    Don't blatantly lie.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-weapons-can-hit-russia-targets-430-miles-away-zelenskyy-2023-9 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-develops-weapon-zelenskyy-says-1.6953132

    So, if you wanna say "oh secretly it was still the US that supplied the drones or whatever", extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I thought you were talking about artillery. Those drones are just repurposed consumer drones fitted with explosives they aren't on the scale needed to make a major difference

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    Nope. Just to be sure I went back and checked my initial wording, and I can see why you thought I meant artillery. I should have specified that they are using their own domestically developed military equipment to strike targets within Russia, which could theoretically allow them plausible deniability to then use a couple of Western-supplied artillery, assuming they could do it in such a way that Russia wouldn't be able to tell if it was a drone, IED, or proper artillery.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    These weapons are the kind of thing the Ukrainians have developed to "retaliate" against random civilian housing blocks whenever Russia craters a command center. They're basically modern V1/V2 rockets "This will terrify the russian population into submission!!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Lol really.

    How many Russian civilians has Ukraine "indiscriminately killed", compared to Russia's "collateral damage" when they target "Ukranian command centers".

    Reading this sort of abject nonsense on a day where a Ukranian market was hit with an S300, killing.a minimum 16 people, or when Russia spent the whole winter trying to freeze Ukrainians to death, or bombs cafés where authors and journalists are known to congregate...

    You know what, just fuck you, you genocidal apologist. And fuck Russia, nation of barbarians.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    You do realize that increasing us strength and military spending are bad things right? That just means more death and misery to thr world in general and US residents aslo?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •