• Questy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps provide some air superiority to back up those suggestions of force concentration?

    • Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to go off on a limb and say they wouldn’t be if it weren’t already well known by the enemy

  • ConstableJelly@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • mihor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So ‘Bahmut holds’ wasn’t a viable strategy after all???

    • lilcreacher@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • mihor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Remind me how you can stop bullying if you refrain from challenging the bully.

    • Sirosky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        66
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The truth will never be reductionist.

        collective responsibility of the western world order.

        ie- capitalist imperialism.

        • Sirosky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Such a bog-standard whataboutism that I couldn’t even be bothered to roll my eyes anymore. Thanks for showing your true colors.

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Those colours doesn’t seem to go all the way through though. Scratch them for a moment and you will see the colours of the Russian flag appearing.

              • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yep. I’m against all capitalist imperialism, even China’s. It’s almost like those supporting NATO aren’t really socialists.

                • boredtortoise@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve read those people have a thought called “critical support” where they’re critical against NATO but it’s the only logical lifeline for Ukraine and Europe to end the war some day and prevent similar situations.

                  Personally; I guess that’s a theory, who knows 🤷

        • The dogspaw
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish American soldiers were in ukraine to roll up this war and save lives

          • mihor@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            They would get dealt with just as Russia dealt with the western-trained 47th mechanized brigade full of NATO hardware using stupid western tactics. They got shredded to pieces together with their commander.

            • lntl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fortunately or unfortunately, a destabilized Russia would not be safer for the world than a stable Russia.

            • The dogspaw
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not likely putin doesn’t actually want to die

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That could lead to WW3.

              Only very briefly.

              You have to leave the precedent that the peace of Europe will be preserved, that’s how we made it the last 80 years without a world war.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, to be precise, it could lead to war with Russia. I doubt that would spill over to the whole world.

              That prospect is terrifying enough given Russia’s nuclear weapons, so I’m definitely not arguing that “this is fine”.

              I just think we need to be precise. Russia is not the Soviet Union - they don’t have 50 proxy states around the world.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is NATO helping these guys if they can’t get their shit together?

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.

    • Jumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • lntl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the Allies paid the US with money for their arms? If NATO was selling arms to Ukraine, that’d be totally different.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • MultigrainCerealista [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • mihor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can finance this slaughter yourself, thank you very much.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know which country you think I’m from, but all the countries I have a citizenship in are financing Ukraine plenty.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can finance this slaughter right now, or you can finance your own slaughter later.

          Your choice.

    • shiveyarbles@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it’s the right thing to do. Because they’re getting invaded by a fascist dictatorship.

    • mihor@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • keeb420@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • mihor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

            • mihor@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s what Russia and Ukraine thought, until US started to interfere. It took them 20+ years to finally ignite the war.

                • mihor@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.