3 ms·
> at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv. This is a war of attrition. The progress is not linear, and it's not a
by ossobuco 2y ago
> at their current rates of "winning" it will take them literally decades to reach Kyiv.
This is a war of attrition. The progress is not linear, and it's not about how much territory is held by each side. The defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. We've seen the first signs in the past few months, and that's why Ukraine invaded Kursk. They knew very well that simply holding the line was a lost cause for them, due to attrition.
The question was never "How long will it take for Russia to get to Kiev", but "How long can Ukraine hold the line before it's out of steam".
- aguaviva 2y agoThe defender holds the line until it collapses because they've exhausted manpower and weapons. Or the aggressor gives up because the cost is simply too high, and the whole thing was completely optional for them to begin with, anyway. As all colonial powers do eventually.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoAll Empires fall.
- aguaviva 2y agoUnfortunately they don't, and a great many "regular" countries today are in effect matured empires, rump versions of former empires, or local hegemonies / forced unions of other sorts. In effect, they're the successful ones. The thing is, very few have quite as much of an obsession with their former status, and such a strong revanchist axe to grind (or to be as stuck in such an archaic form of "empire" mode generally) as Russia's current regime does/is. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstoßlegende
- ossobuco 2y agoSee how you're just escalating the discussion? Your claim was that Russia is losing because the territorial conquest progress is "slow". Now you're claiming that Russia is losing because they will exhaust their resources before Ukraine. Even this argument is weak, as proven by Ukraine's invasion of Kursk.
- aguaviva 2y agoWe know which side you're cheering for. If every response to what you say is considered an "escalation", then that's your mindset, I suppose.
- ossobuco 2y agoIt's ad hominem time, meaning you have no actual arguments. We can consider the discussion resolved.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aguaviva 2y agoActually the ad hominem resides in your weird, baiting language ("See how you're just escalating ..."). For which you were provided some helpful feedback.
- ossobuco 2y agoThat's not "ad hominem", it's noting how once your argument has been invalidated, you raise a new argument incompatible with the previous one. I'm not attacking your person based on the hypotetical side you are with; I'm criticising your rhetoric, which is clearly not ad hominem. Once again, as I see you're clearly out of arguments I consider this discussion resolved.
- aguaviva 2y agoIt's noting how once your argument has been invalidated, you raise a new argument incompatible with the previous one. Well I don't see it that way, and it seems you're reading a dynamic into the situation that just isn't there. But we agree in any case that the discussion has been dead for several iterations now.