4 ms·

Emigration or fleeing is not desertion, if you leave a country before being part of the army, you have fled the country but you did not desert. You have to be p

by voidr 2y ago

Emigration or fleeing is not desertion, if you leave a country before being part of the army, you have fled the country but you did not desert. You have to be part of a military unit to have the ability to desert. You can look at Ukrainian sources about the desertion problem, there are videos of actual Ukrainian soldiers and commanders talking about this, they made laws around this issue. > Russia's entire army is in shambles, Ukraine is executing areal attacks against Russian fucking air defence with Cessna "rockets", and that works! There's reports, with video of Russia's army having entirely run out of equipment, using golf carts as armored vehicles. > And yes, Ukraine works by the general tactic of retreating 100 meters leaving a trap, having Russia sacrifice WAY too much dealing with the trap, retreating another 100 meters. So are the maps that I'm looking at all fake(including the Ukrainian ones) or the Russian army that is in shambles is till beating the Ukrainian army? > As for the money, aside from the amount quoted being bullshit The 100bn came from Zelensky, so is he saying bullshit? > the 150 billion dollars that US + EU loaned combined I'm pretty sure the US alone has sent more than 150, but it doesn't matter because it would make the situation look even worse. > trade for destroying the Russian army For a destroyed army they are gaining a lot of ground, I'm afraid to even think about what would a not-destroyed Russian army would be capable of. > be repaid by the Ukrainian government. 70% or so is a direct stimulus for the US economy, paid by Ukraine, if they win Even if they win, they won't have an economy to pay it back. > It would be cheap even if it was a gift to Ukraine, but it's not. It is a gift because the likelihood of Ukraine ever paying it back is one the same level of Hawk Tuah Coin gaining back it's value. It's not cheap because it didn't accomplish much. > By contrast, just the Russian actions in the Baltic seas, cutting internet cables are estimated to cost 2+ billion. You do realise that the Baltic sea is far away from Ukraine and even if Russia loses the war they can still send submarines there right? --- I recommend you look at factual accounts of what is actually happening, you can look at multiple sources to minise bias and you should be open to the possibility that your favourite news outlets might not be completely honest with the way they are presenting things because their reporting does not line up with all the facts. Even if I accept all your beliefs about Putin and Russia, I can still say that most of the money given was wasted compared to spending it on the European side of NATO.

mopsi 2y ago
> So are the maps that I'm looking at all fake(including the Ukrainian ones) or the Russian army that is in shambles is till beating the Ukrainian army? In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory. Size of Russian age groups (male), for comparison: 20–24 years: 3.85 million 25–29 years: 3.75 million 30–34 years: 5.02 million 35–39 years: 6.29 million 40–44 years: 5.68 million Russian "success" consists of rapidly burning through its male population for miniscule and unmeaningful gains. And before anyone says that war is non-linear and massive gains are only a breakthrough away: Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs. Armour is depleted, territorial gains have stalled, daily losses are larger than ever before, and there's no end in sight. For most military strategists, being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario. The war started with Russian media boasting how they'll be in Kyiv in three days; now they celebrate each time they manage to exchange tens of thousands of lives for an abandoned village in rural Ukraine.
- voidr 2y ago
  > In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory. Maybe gaining territory was not really the objective, maybe not all territory is considered equal. Also they gained 20% of Ukraine along with some of it's population, if they gained more than 400 000(or whatever the actual number is) people, then the exchange was profitable. It would have been interesting to see how many people would the US have been willing to sacrifice had the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have been averted. > Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs They might be fighting with clubs, slingshots and shovels, but they are still gaining ground, so either this is not true, or the Russians are so good that they don't need armour. Since I have seen Ukrainian videos with recent dates that show columns of Russian armour, I would say that it's probably not true. > territorial gains have stalled They have actually accelerated, remember how long Bakhmut lasted? Now they are speedrunning it, they capture something militarily important almost every month. > no end in sight There is: Ukraine wants to recruit 18 year olds, clearly they are at the end of their rope. > being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario They can freeze the conflict whenever they want, the Russians don't want to because they feel that they have the initiative, that's why it's so difficult to negotiate with them. > abandoned village in rural Ukraine In military context small villages can have significant importance. Landfills can be incredibly important as well even though they don't have much intrinsic value. > exchange tens of thousands of lives Maybe that's a win for them, maybe they just want to erase military power and even if their exchanges are less efficient it might still be worth it for them because they can absorb the higher cost in lives due to their larger population. I do believe that because the Russians are more numerous and have their own military industry, it's the Ukrainians that suffer more casualties, however it doesn't matter because if it meets their objective, it's a victory.

by voidr 2y ago

mopsi 2y ago

> So are the maps that I'm looking at all fake(including the Ukrainian ones) or the Russian army that is in shambles is till beating the Ukrainian army? In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory. Size of Russian age groups (male), for comparison: 20–24 years: 3.85 million 25–29 years: 3.75 million 30–34 years: 5.02 million 35–39 years: 6.29 million 40–44 years: 5.68 million Russian "success" consists of rapidly burning through its male population for miniscule and unmeaningful gains. And before anyone says that war is non-linear and massive gains are only a breakthrough away: Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs. Armour is depleted, territorial gains have stalled, daily losses are larger than ever before, and there's no end in sight. For most military strategists, being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario. The war started with Russian media boasting how they'll be in Kyiv in three days; now they celebrate each time they manage to exchange tens of thousands of lives for an abandoned village in rural Ukraine.

voidr 2y ago
> In what sense is half a percent of territorial gain for 400 000 casualties "beating" anyone? It is textbook Pyrrhic victory. Maybe gaining territory was not really the objective, maybe not all territory is considered equal. Also they gained 20% of Ukraine along with some of it's population, if they gained more than 400 000(or whatever the actual number is) people, then the exchange was profitable. It would have been interesting to see how many people would the US have been willing to sacrifice had the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have been averted. > Russia has no armour left to exploit breakthroughs They might be fighting with clubs, slingshots and shovels, but they are still gaining ground, so either this is not true, or the Russians are so good that they don't need armour. Since I have seen Ukrainian videos with recent dates that show columns of Russian armour, I would say that it's probably not true. > territorial gains have stalled They have actually accelerated, remember how long Bakhmut lasted? Now they are speedrunning it, they capture something militarily important almost every month. > no end in sight There is: Ukraine wants to recruit 18 year olds, clearly they are at the end of their rope. > being stuck in unwinnable war like this is a nightmare scenario They can freeze the conflict whenever they want, the Russians don't want to because they feel that they have the initiative, that's why it's so difficult to negotiate with them. > abandoned village in rural Ukraine In military context small villages can have significant importance. Landfills can be incredibly important as well even though they don't have much intrinsic value. > exchange tens of thousands of lives Maybe that's a win for them, maybe they just want to erase military power and even if their exchanges are less efficient it might still be worth it for them because they can absorb the higher cost in lives due to their larger population. I do believe that because the Russians are more numerous and have their own military industry, it's the Ukrainians that suffer more casualties, however it doesn't matter because if it meets their objective, it's a victory.