5 ms·

Russia is starting to lose ground in Ukraine

llm_nerd 5mo ago
[flagged]
- pjc50 5mo ago
  > And a number of NATO members need to rapidly become nuclear capable I don't think we should cheer the end of non-proliferation in the long run.
  - llm_nerd 5mo ago
    How does my post in any way "cheer" the end of non-proliferation? It is a simple statement of fact that there have been geopolitical changes that demand nuclear armaments for any sovereign nation that wants to remain so. There was a detente that is gone, and it is very much every nation for itself. There are a dozen+ nuclear capable -- almost overnight -- nations, for whom the inputs have dramatically and irreversibly changed. These nations will, with utter certainty, go from non-nuclear one day to nuclear-armed the next.
- atmavatar 5mo ago
  > It crosses both sides of the aisle, and Americans have decided this is ay okay. What gives you this impression?
giuliomagnifico 5mo ago
Without paywall: https://archive.ph/2026.05.18-115301/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2026/05/17/russia-is-starting-to-lose-ground-in-ukraine https://archive.ph/2026.05.18-115301/https://www.economist.c...
Bender 5mo ago
If Russia is truly losing ground and if they see this as an existential threat could this possibly lead to the use of nukes?
- postepowanieadm 5mo ago
  No.
  - usui 5mo ago
    Probably more nuke threats at least though?
- SanjayMehta 5mo ago
  Russia can obliterate every European HQ with conventional weapons. Oreshnik alone could decapitate the EU in under 30 minutes.
  - pjc50 5mo ago
    The EU does have air defences and QRA. Eastern Europe is more at risk from this. And then the question people keep failing to ask: "now what"? Russia is then fully at war with Europe and an open field for air strikes.
    - SanjayMehta 5mo ago
      What AD? Patriot has shown itself to be incapable of defending itself, leave alone a capital city.
      - pjc50 5mo ago
        UK deploys Star Streak for protecting critical locations. There was some mild controversy over this being deployed for the Olympics.
  - egorfine 5mo ago
    Please google what is Oreshnik and what this weapon is capable of. Spoiler: it's absolutely useless. Russia does have great weapons that CAN hurt a lot, but Oreshnik is not one of them.
    - 5mo ago
sameers 5mo ago
https://archive.ph/QEbgT https://archive.ph/QEbgT
Zigurd 5mo ago
Yet another way in which the US has bungled an overseas conflict. The best time to have strongly supported Ukraine was in the past couple of years leading up to this outcome. Now, if Trump somehow can stop gazing lovingly into Putin's eyes, it will be seen as getting on the bandwagon.
- arvid-lind 5mo ago
  He admires autocrats and aspires to be one, in addition to aligning the US with Russian interests. You think he will get on the Ukraine/NATO bandwagon?
  - Zigurd 5mo ago
    Maybe. Probably late. Transparently lacking credibility. But he'll make a loud noise about it.
- SanjayMehta 5mo ago
  Which conflict has the US won in the last 25 years? Strike that: 50 years? There's a strong case that they didn't even defeat the nazis, that was done by the Soviets.
  - HatchedLake721 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - mathgeek 5mo ago
    > There's a strong case that they didn't even defeat the nazis, that was done by the Soviets. With Lend-Lease equipment. No matter what way you cut it, multiple nations defeated the Nazis together.
    - SanjayMehta 5mo ago
      30% of trucks and transport 8% of the tanks 0% of the casualties: 27 million
imglorp 5mo ago
I'm not at all clear on what Putin gains with expansion. Russia has way more land than they need. Their population has been flat since the 80s. Their military is already depleted and skeletal. Anyone who's played Diplomacy understands that if you spread too thin as you expand into your neighbors, they will keep taking back your gains like we see here. Complete occupation is clearly out of the question at this point, they're going to keep fighting over a stolen sliver here and there. No ego has been satisfied here, nor will it be.
- pjc50 5mo ago
  On the other hand, it is extremely Russian to not surrender no matter how badly it is going and regardless of the cost in human life. Leningrad, Stalingrad, even burning Moscow to keep it from Napoleon. For nationalist purposes, it doesn't matter if the objective is worthless or unachievable. Like so many other situations, we have to wait for him to die.
  - NordStreamYacht 5mo ago
    Wait for whom to die?
    - DANmode 5mo ago
      Only one person was mentioned in this thread.
      - aworks 5mo ago
        I hope Peter Zeihan lives a long life.
        DANmode 5mo ago
        That’s a different thread that didn’t even exist when the comment you’re replying to was posted. So… Find something better to do. I’m going to.
daft_pink 5mo ago
When the war started, I would carefully watch the news and be excited when they would say something like Himars will change the war, etc. Now I’m just convinced it is all propaganda and I blocked those YouTubers from my feed.
- xpl 5mo ago
  It made a big difference when it first appeared on the battlefield. Russia has adapted since then, so it's no longer a game changer. But systems like these helped Ukraine hold on, and they continue to do so today.

[flagged]

pjc50 5mo ago
> And a number of NATO members need to rapidly become nuclear capable I don't think we should cheer the end of non-proliferation in the long run.
- llm_nerd 5mo ago
  How does my post in any way "cheer" the end of non-proliferation? It is a simple statement of fact that there have been geopolitical changes that demand nuclear armaments for any sovereign nation that wants to remain so. There was a detente that is gone, and it is very much every nation for itself. There are a dozen+ nuclear capable -- almost overnight -- nations, for whom the inputs have dramatically and irreversibly changed. These nations will, with utter certainty, go from non-nuclear one day to nuclear-armed the next.
atmavatar 5mo ago
> It crosses both sides of the aisle, and Americans have decided this is ay okay. What gives you this impression?

Without paywall: https://archive.ph/2026.05.18-115301/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2026/05/17/russia-is-starting-to-lose-ground-in-ukraine https://archive.ph/2026.05.18-115301/https://www.economist.c...

Bender 5mo ago

If Russia is truly losing ground and if they see this as an existential threat could this possibly lead to the use of nukes?

postepowanieadm 5mo ago
No.
- usui 5mo ago
  Probably more nuke threats at least though?
SanjayMehta 5mo ago
Russia can obliterate every European HQ with conventional weapons. Oreshnik alone could decapitate the EU in under 30 minutes.
- pjc50 5mo ago
  The EU does have air defences and QRA. Eastern Europe is more at risk from this. And then the question people keep failing to ask: "now what"? Russia is then fully at war with Europe and an open field for air strikes.
  - SanjayMehta 5mo ago
    What AD? Patriot has shown itself to be incapable of defending itself, leave alone a capital city.
    - pjc50 5mo ago
      UK deploys Star Streak for protecting critical locations. There was some mild controversy over this being deployed for the Olympics.
- egorfine 5mo ago
  Please google what is Oreshnik and what this weapon is capable of. Spoiler: it's absolutely useless. Russia does have great weapons that CAN hurt a lot, but Oreshnik is not one of them.
  - 5mo ago

sameers 5mo ago

https://archive.ph/QEbgT https://archive.ph/QEbgT

Zigurd 5mo ago

Yet another way in which the US has bungled an overseas conflict. The best time to have strongly supported Ukraine was in the past couple of years leading up to this outcome. Now, if Trump somehow can stop gazing lovingly into Putin's eyes, it will be seen as getting on the bandwagon.

arvid-lind 5mo ago
He admires autocrats and aspires to be one, in addition to aligning the US with Russian interests. You think he will get on the Ukraine/NATO bandwagon?
- Zigurd 5mo ago
  Maybe. Probably late. Transparently lacking credibility. But he'll make a loud noise about it.
SanjayMehta 5mo ago
Which conflict has the US won in the last 25 years? Strike that: 50 years? There's a strong case that they didn't even defeat the nazis, that was done by the Soviets.
- HatchedLake721 5mo ago
  [dead]
- mathgeek 5mo ago
  > There's a strong case that they didn't even defeat the nazis, that was done by the Soviets. With Lend-Lease equipment. No matter what way you cut it, multiple nations defeated the Nazis together.
  - SanjayMehta 5mo ago
    30% of trucks and transport 8% of the tanks 0% of the casualties: 27 million

imglorp 5mo ago

I'm not at all clear on what Putin gains with expansion. Russia has way more land than they need. Their population has been flat since the 80s. Their military is already depleted and skeletal. Anyone who's played Diplomacy understands that if you spread too thin as you expand into your neighbors, they will keep taking back your gains like we see here. Complete occupation is clearly out of the question at this point, they're going to keep fighting over a stolen sliver here and there. No ego has been satisfied here, nor will it be.

pjc50 5mo ago
On the other hand, it is extremely Russian to not surrender no matter how badly it is going and regardless of the cost in human life. Leningrad, Stalingrad, even burning Moscow to keep it from Napoleon. For nationalist purposes, it doesn't matter if the objective is worthless or unachievable. Like so many other situations, we have to wait for him to die.
- NordStreamYacht 5mo ago
  Wait for whom to die?
  - DANmode 5mo ago
    Only one person was mentioned in this thread.
    - aworks 5mo ago
      I hope Peter Zeihan lives a long life.
      - DANmode 5mo ago
        That’s a different thread that didn’t even exist when the comment you’re replying to was posted. So… Find something better to do. I’m going to.

daft_pink 5mo ago

When the war started, I would carefully watch the news and be excited when they would say something like Himars will change the war, etc. Now I’m just convinced it is all propaganda and I blocked those YouTubers from my feed.

xpl 5mo ago
It made a big difference when it first appeared on the battlefield. Russia has adapted since then, so it's no longer a game changer. But systems like these helped Ukraine hold on, and they continue to do so today.