Russia hasn’t gained any ground in over a year. They have lost their airpower. The Black Sea Fleet is heavily damaged and a good chunk has been sunk. On top of that, they have lost 5,618 tanks, 10,482 Amored vehicles, 8,045 artillery systems, 919 MLRS, 605 Anti-air systems, 324 airplanes, and another 324 Helicopters, 6,116 UAVs, 1,571 cruse missiles destroyed, 22 ships, 1 submarine, 10,561 vehicles, 1156 special equipment systems, and 336,230 personnel.
Ukraine isn’t losing right now, not by a long shot.
Not to mention their collapsing demographics over the last few decades, made all the worse by the pandemic/failed invasion double whammy. Compounded with the fact that they cannot mount another such an offensive for the foreseeable future.
Even taking all Ukraine as a willing slave at this point would not lessen those defeats, and the AFU would only become a hardened insurgency if the government falls.
Russia has dashed itself to smithereens on Ukraine whether they win or not, and even that is not yet sure.
The article states that any gain in substantial ground for Russia would be deemed a victory.
If these are the victory conditions, then Russia is really close to victory. They just have to negotiate a cease fire and uphold it, until the borders become normality and a peace treaty is signed with them.
It is really just a definition of what it means to win and loose.
That would be like if a football game with a 60 point lead changed the rules mid-game to say that the victory conditions for the team losing by 60 points is now just gaining a single yard.
That’s war. You have a victory target and try to achieve that. We do not know the victory target of Russia (we only know the propaganda they are spreading publicly).
The victory target may also change over time with what is realistically achievable.
So it is difficult to speak of winning or loosing without that information.
In a sports game, the teams agreed on the terms before the game started.
Yeah, but Russia is in an objectively worse geopolitical position than before the war. Before the war, Ukraine was a staunch Russian ally, and SW/FI weren’t NATO members. Also, they had ~5000 more tanks and a couple hundred thousand more servicemen. Also, CSTO was a thing. Also, Kazakhstan. Also, Wagner didn’t attempt a coup showing how weak Russian leadership is. Also, the Black Sea Fleet had a flagship floating on the Black Sea.
It’s as if the US went to war with the UK, broke apart NATO, lost a couple carrier groups, and said “we’ve got Scotland so we’re totally winning”.
In that case, we’ll have to change the term from Pyrrhic Victory to Putic Victory.
If your opponent is beating you that badly, you take a W where you can.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a39e1f1d-0296-4a65-8a79-a5726282aabd
This is literal concern-trolling. In the past month Russia has been pushed back to their third line of defense in the south.
What ties does the Telegraph have to Russia?
From 2007 to 2017, the Telegraph was actually one of four European newspapers that published Russia Beyond The Headlines (a project from Russia’s state news outlet) as a supplement.
The Telegraph Group has recently been in financial trouble and bailed out by a company run by the vice-president of the UAE Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. While Putin is visiting the UAE next week, Mansour is probably best known in the UK as owner of top-flight football team Manchester City, so him doing stuff in the UK is not anything new. On the other hand there is a government probe in to this acquisition, perhaps unsurprising considering that the Telegraph is one of the four newspapers of record in the UK despite how shit it is
There is a growing sentiment within the Biden administration, for example, that its interests would be better served by pressuring Zelensky to sue for peace, rather than persisting with a military campaign he stands little chance of winning.
I seriously doubt this.
Yeah, it is most definitely in the US/NATO’s best interests to continue supporting Ukraine against russia, as the longer the conflict continues, the more severely russia cripples itself against any future conflicts. It’s already an impossibility for russia to feasibly launch a successful offensive against any NATO nation at this point.
Why the hell would we stop supporting Ukraine when that serves to further our own interests and further weaken our greatest enemy?
That is, unless you’re a compromised republican/MAGA moron… (Hope it’s clear I’m not referring to the user above me here.)
Why the hell would we stop supporting Ukraine when that serves to further our own interests and further weaken our greatest enemy?
Because some of the individuals in the executive branch are on Putins payroll.
But trump isn’t president any longer…
Yea, he wasn’t the only one.
Laughable to assign that to Biden. I’m not a fan, but there’s no whataboutism to be had on this particular subject. The two are not comparable.
Show me where Biden sucked down putin’s cock and balls like trump gobbled down over our own intelligence agencies.
I don’t think the guy was talking about Biden. Did the US vote those idiots who did a trip to Moscow on the 4th of July out of office yet?
If they meant those individuals, fair enough. Seemed like a whataboutism towards Biden to me tho.
That’s the legislative branch, not executive. And yes, I’d say it applies to each of the “freedom caucus” morons.
Definitely wasn’t talking about Biden. Swing and a miss
Ah, guess I’m too conditioned by the rampant whataboutism nowadays.
Because some of the individuals in the executive branch are on Putins payroll.
I think you mean Legislative?
As you should. There’s not a court in the world that could take this case. That growing sentiment is pure disinformation
Trashy British tabloid. Please don’t post these.
The fuck he is
It is not over yet.
I can’t read the article. Need to set up a subscription.
But the title does not sound promising. To be a victor, you first have to define what your victory conditions are. Depending on those, Putin might be right before victory, or light years away.
Russia bad!
