5 ms·
> editorial Yeah, no. Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? > As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of b
by cpursley 4y ago
> editorial
Yeah, no. Do we consider western editorials as official government positions?
> As of May, they'd lost more troops than they lost in a decade of bloody war in Afghanistan.
Completely meaningless. We're talking a real (kinda) near-peer war vs playing in the sandbox vs guys in sandals with AKs. It's disingenuous to compare the two, and you know it. Iraq is not even a proper comparison. You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. Maybe some of the Korean battles.
> Even their stated goals included Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification". Hard to do that if you stop at the Donbas.
Fair enough point. Guess we'll see.
- ceejayoz 4y ago> Do we consider western editorials as official government positions? If they're in state media, sure. Even our independent media is permitted to call it a war, though, not just a "special military operation". > We're talking a real near-peer war Sure. That it's near-peer is a surprise.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> We're talking a real near-peer war Ukraine wasn't supposed to be a a “near peer” for Russia. > You'll need to compare what's going on now with WWII combined arms battles. The question, really, is whether domestic public (and elite) opinion sees the costs like an outside existential threat like WWII or an external intervention of choice like Afghanistan.