5 ms·

I believe that is what it looks like from a Russian perspective.

WJW 5y ago
To be fair, without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now. It's an open secret that NATO has been passing on intelligence from AWACS and spy satellites to the Ukrainian forces as well. There might be no NATO troops on the ground but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is purely Ukraine vs Russia.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now And without the navy Russia annexed [1], or it’s Soviet military kit, much of which was designed and built in Ukraine, Russia wouldn’t have much of a start. Ukraine repelled Putin’s forces on its own in the early days of the war, when Western intelligence was predicting another Kabul. That it later attracted sympathy is further testament to its diplomatic strength (and the Kremlin’s isolation). [1] https://tass.com/russia/724901 https://tass.com/russia/724901
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, where did you read that? I assumed Wiki had been trolled, but even they add the rather important follow up you seem to be unaware of [1]. Just quoting Wiki as it is accurate on this note (you can also search anywhere to confirm): "On 8 April 2014 an agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine to return Ukrainian Navy materials to Ukraine proper. The greater portion of the Ukrainian naval ships and vessels were then returned to Ukraine but Russia suspended this process after Ukraine did not renew its unilaterally declared ceasefire on 1 July 2014 in the conflict in the Donbas." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexation_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexa...
- _djo_ 5y ago
  It's still only Ukraine vs Russia, even if Ukraine is using weapons acquired from elsewhere and getting intelligence information from other countries. That's a pretty basic idea in international politics, having been developed over decades of similar proxy wars. Same reason the US didn't consider itself at war with the USSR in Korea or Vietnam.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>getting intelligence information from other countries. Don't underestimate the massive value (and massive expense, for NATO) associated with providing that intelligence. Ukraine is basically playing Starcraft with a "disable fog of war" cheatcode activated.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      While that sort of assistance is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't rise to the level of military action that justifies retaliatory strikes. It's also something that has established precedent in the proxy conflicts I mentioned before, with the USSR and US both in turn providing strategic and in some cases tactical intelligence to the other side. As long as the aircraft gathering the intelligence aren't flying inside the battle zone.
- tl 5y ago
  Russian military spending: $66 billion Ukrainian military spending: $5.4 billion I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. Russian made a serious error in how much territory they tried to hold as opposed to the re-positioning / fighting over Donbas that's happening now. If the US ($801 billion) tried to conquer Canada ($26 billion), I would expect a similarly poor outcome based on Canada's size. If the US tried to annex specific oil rich areas under the guise of "protecting" oil pipelines, it's be reprehensible, but so was Crimea.
  - WJW 5y ago
    The total spending does not say as much as you'd think, since a large percentage of the Russian military budget goes to the Strategic Nuke forces (which are not very useful for the war in Ukraine) and another sizable chunk goes to the navy (most of which is not even present in the Black sea atm). There are also sizable inland forces for "maintaining political stability" that take up money from the budget but can't be deployed abroad. This means a large portion of Russian military spending can't be used in the current war. OTOH, almost every Ukrainian military asset they have was acquired with an eventual defense against Russia in mind so they have a much better rate of available fighting power per dollar spent.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. They did send about $5 billion worth of equipment. It is probably a factor why Russia isn't currently sieging Kiev. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-mil...
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    In the US alone the most recent spending bill allocated another $13.6 billion to Ukraine. [1] I've no idea what the worldwide total is, to say nothing of how much is coming from unreported black budget operations, but Ukraine is getting vastly more than $5 billion, they're getting it in less than 2 months, and they're able to dedicate 100% of it to this war. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-aid-omnibus/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-ai...
pmyteh 5y ago
It's totally a NATO proxy war. We're doing everything we can short of sending in our own troops with the intent of defending Ukraine and weakening Russia. It's also totally a Russian war of aggression. The two are not in any way incompatible.

WJW 5y ago

To be fair, without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now. It's an open secret that NATO has been passing on intelligence from AWACS and spy satellites to the Ukrainian forces as well. There might be no NATO troops on the ground but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is purely Ukraine vs Russia.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now And without the navy Russia annexed [1], or it’s Soviet military kit, much of which was designed and built in Ukraine, Russia wouldn’t have much of a start. Ukraine repelled Putin’s forces on its own in the early days of the war, when Western intelligence was predicting another Kabul. That it later attracted sympathy is further testament to its diplomatic strength (and the Kremlin’s isolation). [1] https://tass.com/russia/724901 https://tass.com/russia/724901
- somenameforme 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, where did you read that? I assumed Wiki had been trolled, but even they add the rather important follow up you seem to be unaware of [1]. Just quoting Wiki as it is accurate on this note (you can also search anywhere to confirm): "On 8 April 2014 an agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine to return Ukrainian Navy materials to Ukraine proper. The greater portion of the Ukrainian naval ships and vessels were then returned to Ukraine but Russia suspended this process after Ukraine did not renew its unilaterally declared ceasefire on 1 July 2014 in the conflict in the Donbas." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexation_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexa...
_djo_ 5y ago
It's still only Ukraine vs Russia, even if Ukraine is using weapons acquired from elsewhere and getting intelligence information from other countries. That's a pretty basic idea in international politics, having been developed over decades of similar proxy wars. Same reason the US didn't consider itself at war with the USSR in Korea or Vietnam.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>getting intelligence information from other countries. Don't underestimate the massive value (and massive expense, for NATO) associated with providing that intelligence. Ukraine is basically playing Starcraft with a "disable fog of war" cheatcode activated.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    While that sort of assistance is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't rise to the level of military action that justifies retaliatory strikes. It's also something that has established precedent in the proxy conflicts I mentioned before, with the USSR and US both in turn providing strategic and in some cases tactical intelligence to the other side. As long as the aircraft gathering the intelligence aren't flying inside the battle zone.
tl 5y ago
Russian military spending: $66 billion Ukrainian military spending: $5.4 billion I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. Russian made a serious error in how much territory they tried to hold as opposed to the re-positioning / fighting over Donbas that's happening now. If the US ($801 billion) tried to conquer Canada ($26 billion), I would expect a similarly poor outcome based on Canada's size. If the US tried to annex specific oil rich areas under the guise of "protecting" oil pipelines, it's be reprehensible, but so was Crimea.
- WJW 5y ago
  The total spending does not say as much as you'd think, since a large percentage of the Russian military budget goes to the Strategic Nuke forces (which are not very useful for the war in Ukraine) and another sizable chunk goes to the navy (most of which is not even present in the Black sea atm). There are also sizable inland forces for "maintaining political stability" that take up money from the budget but can't be deployed abroad. This means a large portion of Russian military spending can't be used in the current war. OTOH, almost every Ukrainian military asset they have was acquired with an eventual defense against Russia in mind so they have a much better rate of available fighting power per dollar spent.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. They did send about $5 billion worth of equipment. It is probably a factor why Russia isn't currently sieging Kiev. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-mil...
- somenameforme 5y ago
  In the US alone the most recent spending bill allocated another $13.6 billion to Ukraine. [1] I've no idea what the worldwide total is, to say nothing of how much is coming from unreported black budget operations, but Ukraine is getting vastly more than $5 billion, they're getting it in less than 2 months, and they're able to dedicate 100% of it to this war. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-aid-omnibus/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-ai...

pmyteh 5y ago

It's totally a NATO proxy war. We're doing everything we can short of sending in our own troops with the intent of defending Ukraine and weakening Russia. It's also totally a Russian war of aggression. The two are not in any way incompatible.