50

This is one of the first mainstream articles that's openly talking about the fact that US is not going to keep supporting Ukraine for "as long as it takes"

U.S. Administration has an obligation to unemotionally view the war as it genuinely is, not as we would wish it to be, and make decisions based on U.S. interests—which are not always identical with Ukraine’s interests.

It further admits that the offensive is a failure and Ukraine is unlikely achieve any significant gains regardless of what the west sends

The hard truth is that a sober analysis of both Ukraine’s three-month summer offensive and an assessment of the war overall leads to the conclusion not simply that the offensive is going “too slow” but that it appears unlikely to succeed. Arguably, it won’t matter how much time Kyiv is given, how many weapons it is provided, and how much ammunition the West delivers: completely evicting Russia from the territory it illegally seized appears to be a militarily unattainable aspiration.

There is finally an admission in the mainstream that prolonging the war simply results in more people dying and Ukraine losing more territory, an obvious fact that libs continue to dismiss and ridicule today

Without a change in policy, Washington’s approach is poised to condemn tens of thousands of additional Ukrainians to unnecessary deaths and reduce more Ukrainian territory to dust.

There's finally an admission that Ukraine has at least 200k dead and wounded. While likely lower than the actual losses, it is a significantly higher number than what western media has been peddling up to this point

More critically, Ukraine has lost a conservatively estimated 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded, including tens of thousands who have had limbs blown off and an unknown – but likely massive – number of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries.

There's also an admission that US inventory has dried up, and replacements will take years to produce

After the first 18 months of this war, the U.S. has contributed over two million artillery shells, thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles, and tens of thousands of anti-air and anti-tank missiles. Whatever slack there was in our inventories has long since evaporated. Though we have started the process of expanding our industrial capacity to produce more arms and weapons, it will be years before we catch up to demand. The fact is, we will have to diminish our own military capacity to provide Ukraine with what it needs, harming our own national security.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] StalinwasaGryffindor@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago

Though we have started the process of expanding our industrial capacity to produce more arms and weapons, it will be years before we catch up to demand.

This always blows my mind. American armaments are such white elephants, it’s all overpriced toys that take forever to produce. How on earth is it going to take years to catch up to demand? Meanwhile I’m supposed to believe that Russia ran out of tanks/ammo sometime in the summer of 2021

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 1 year ago

It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about the incentive structure. US military industrial complex exists to generate profit for the oligarchs. Making expensive weapons that take a long time to develop, and that require high levels of maintenance is a really good way to siphon as much tax dollars out of the system as possible. Since the end of the cold war, US waged wars on poor countries that didn't have any serious military capacity. Having absolute technological dominance over the opponent meant that there was little chance of any of these toys actually coming under threat.

[-] StalinwasaGryffindor@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

Oh yeah, for sure. The people who profit from this are doing great, and will continue to do so even once Ukraine is forced to the negotiating table.

I just find it funny to hear nato heads brag about how amazing our weapons are, and how Russia is going to be out produced by nato, and that arming Ukraine is a defense of democracy, but apparently it takes years to ramp up production? It’s so stupid.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Very much agree, western propaganda is becoming completely incoherent.

[-] ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I've been thinking every time I see stuff like this, the U.S. army couldn't deal with Afghanistan, and I guess that even goes back to Vietnam. (Though, the Red Army couldn't deal with Afghanistan either, so I guess it's more that regular armies can't deal with protracted? guerilla warfare? too well? IDK). But also, any country that can deal with the blow from the first wave (i.e. everything they have at the start of the war, when they are fully stocked up) can probably just outproduce them?

The US army only really works on the traditional armies of over-exploited countries I guess.

[-] Buchenstr@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

The situation in Afghanistan for the soviets and Americans is not really as compatible with each other as people might think. The Soviet Union had to deal with rebels whom were continuously supplied with American weapons, and with some Wahhabi propaganda from the Saudi's mixed in with some American anti-communist propaganda, you had 10,000s of volunteers fighting against soviet soldiers. The Soviets also fought to keep the entire country secured, even the countryside, which led to high casualties for both soviet soldiers and the mujahedeen.

Whereas the Americans were fighting the taliban, whom were a splinter group from the mujahedeen, and was busy fighting other mujahedeen splinter groups and the 'democratic forces' which the US backed, no one supplied weapons to the Taliban, no one single country endorsed 'jihad' to fight american occupation unlike the one we saw during the soviet war in Afghanistan. Yet the yanks still lost.

[-] olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

tl;dr the soviets didn't fucking bombed the country daily killing civilians and children, went toe to toe with an entrenched and well armed and trained army

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

The Japanese couldn't deal with the Communists either. Guerilla war is hard.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

US weapons are literally not designed for a peer conflict because the assumption has always been complete NATO superiority. The last point where the US was worried about things like "cost" and "maintenance" was the final stages of the Cold War.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Exactly, US got complacent with having undisputed military dominance, and a peer conflict was never anticipated.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Redditors yet again cut off by their own sources lmao.

Not that they will accept it, i can already predict the comments if you post that on lemmy world news.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 year ago

It's been incredible to watch them dismiss the same sources they use as Putler propaganda whenever these sources say what they don't want to hear. The meltdown that's coming in the next few months is going to be absolutely incredible.

[-] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I read one paragraph and tapped out, pure morshupls vibes

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 25 points 1 year ago

Haha actually reading through these articles is often incredibly painful, but it's amazing how many admissions they squirrel away once you cut past all the spin. It's absolutely hilarious how mainstream libs dismiss these these things as Putler propaganda, but it's right there in black and white in mainstream western media.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I mean it's not putler propaganda, it's just American propaganda for those in opposition to the war. The first claim doesn't really make any sense. Why would this not suite the interest of the ruling class and the industrialized military sector?

These are a group of people approaching their 80s in many cases, they've been waiting to kill Russians since they were in grade school. Having Ukrainians do it for them is basically the best case scenario for them, you get to sell all the weapons you can without catching any of the liability.

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Right, the prevailing message in mainstream media is that the war has to keep going no matter what. However, when you read it carefully, you can get a clear sense that things are not going according to plan and that Ukraine is getting used as a geopolitical pawn. Unfortunately, most people in the west are still convinced that the war needs to keep going and that Ukraine is going to win it, which means many more people are going to die before this is all over.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

However, when you read it carefully, you can get a clear sense that things are not going according to plan and that Ukraine is getting used as a geopolitical pawn.

I don't really think anyone capable of understanding realpolitik ever had any doubts that Ukraine is being used as a pawn. The surprising thing is to me is that Russia is taking the bait again. Even if they capture the entirety of Ukraine, what has that really done? They already had access to the black sea, they already have more resources and land than they can utilize. Why hamstring an already failing population rate and economic system with a prolonged ground campaign?

This is just going to be another Afghanistan for them.

[-] WaterBowlSlime@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 year ago

If they hadn't fought back then Ukraine would continue bolstering its Nazi troops unobstructed and cozying up with NATO. How is battling against that "taking the bait"? The West cornered Russia into a lose-lose scenario if anything.

[-] ProxyTheAwesome@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

Ukraine would have invaded Donbas and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Russian speakers right in viewing distance from the Russian border. They would have installed NATO military bases and nukes (Zelenskyy said he would work on getting nukes a couple days before the invasion). Having a NATO military base on the land they are vulnerable from is not acceptable. Russia had no choice, they didn’t “take the bait” they were forced to

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Ukraine would have invaded Donbas and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Russian speakers right in viewing distance from the Russian border.

Ukraine would have invaded Ukraine? And by Russian border, do you mean the Ukrainian territory thats being occupied by Russia?

They would have installed NATO military bases and nukes (Zelenskyy said he would work on getting nukes a couple days before the invasion).

Ukraine already had nukes before that they gave up in a treaty that ratified their sovereignty and borders. Plus, what benefit would having nukes in Ukraine? Nato already have plenty of stations, subs and ICBMs covering any anything strategically valuable in Russia.

Having a NATO military base on the land they are vulnerable from is not acceptable.

Yeah, having people you want to invade joining a defense pact would be troublesome I guess.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

I actually don't think so. Ukraine is significant not only for food security but for export to China. Russia sees the writing on the wall: it's no longer a global superpower and it obviously can't align with the West, so it needs to align with China.

China has a pretty long history of helping develop it's allies' countries with infrastructure and education and whatnot, so it's really a win-win.

How does Ukraine play into this? Well, to maintain food independence for this new alignment, of course.

Also, because closer China-Russia ties will solve both countries' demographic problems: the surplus of women in Russia and men in China are a perfect match, especially after this war.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Russia already has a huge agriculture export though, and the way global warming is heading it's not like they're going to have trouble finding more land.

because closer China-Russia ties will solve both countries' demographic problems: the surplus of women in Russia and men in China are a perfect match, especially after this war.

They really won't though.... The vast majority of Russian women who fall within a surplus are over the age of 50, while Chinas surplus of men are primarily 30s and under.

The Russians occupied the Crimea so they could maintain their access to the black sea. They further invaded their neighbors as retribution for ousting the russian puppet government.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Melted Siberian permafrost doesn't make good agricultural land and people don't need to be the same age to form relationships. People aren't inelastic.

You may also want to read more about the Euromaidan protests, their motivations, and their support: https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

Jacobin is a left-wing news outlet that's generally considered to be factually accurate by American media.

Or, you might consider that the US 4th PsyOps Group considers Euromaidan to be one of their great successes, as shown by a recent recruiting video and by their other promotional materials.

[-] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Melted Siberian permafrost doesn't make good agricultural land

Russia isn't just permafrost my dude.... there are plenty of different ecologies where crops would flourish, but the growing season is too short to do anything with.

people don't need to be the same age to form relationships. People aren't inelastic.

Somehow I don't think importing millions of post menopausal babushkas into china will really help with the population crisis. You may not realize, but there is kinda an age limit on procreation.

Euromaidan protests, their motivations, and their support:

I think that you and this particular article are conflating the motivations of the far right members of the Maidan Revolution with the entirety of the movement and the following establishment government.

Are their nazi and fascist in Ukraine, well yeah. Pretty much anywhere experienced Soviet or nazi occupation during ww2 is going to have reactionary paramilitary groups active in modern times.

That doesn't detract from the fact that there were legitimate reasons for the people of Ukraine to overthrow their corrupt leaders. And it doesn't detract from the fact that the fascist and radical paramilitary groups aren't running the country.

I just don't know why there are so many leftist tripping over themselves to do a character rehab on Russia. They are literally just a worse version of the US, crony capitalism and all.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Russian arable land in the North is just not very productive. A longer growing season won't offset the lost productivity that climate change will inflict in the South.

You do realize that you don't need to have a relationship with someone the exact same age as you, right?

The article does address your points, for what it's worth. Plus, as established by first party sources, Euromaidan was orchestrated by the US with extensive propaganda support... which to any degree detracts from what would otherwise seem to be legitimate reasons for overthrowing government.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Russian arable land in the North is just not very productive.

Mostly due to climate, that and Russia's refusal to invest in any agriculture outside of grain production.

The changes in the south are the same changes pretty much everyone else is going to have to adapt too, floods, droughts, and fire. The only difference is the vast majority of other countries aren't going to be able to expand northward.

You do realize that you don't need to have a relationship with someone the exact same age as you, right?

No shit. My point is that women over 50 have an extremely hard time having children...... Do you not know anything about menopause?

which to any degree detracts from what would otherwise seem to be legitimate reasons for overthrowing government.

Why? I don't get how Russian interference in their neighbors election doesn't detract from the previous governments legitimacy, but the US interference in the maidan uprising automatically detracts from the legitimacy of the new government?

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Russian soil in the North is inferior because it's thin, has few nutrients, and tends to be acidic. Chernozem is Russia's most productive soil and it's predominantly concentrated in the south of the country. In fact, it's the same soil that makes the Canadian Prairies so productive.

Again, do you not understand that people don't need to have relationships where ages match?

What corruption (more than usual for Ukraine) was there in Poroshenko's election? Weren't there literally thousands of international observers for that election? Similarly, for Yanukovych's election, where was the impact of this so-called interference? International observers were once again present and found no evidence of such wrongdoing. If you go back to 2004, the government had mechanisms to protect against explicit corruption (in case you forget, Yanukovych ended up losing that election in the re-run). Which of these governments are you calling illegitimate because of Russian electoral interference?

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Russian soil in the North is inferior because it's thin, has few nutrients, and tends to be acidic.

Yes, which is not great for growing wheat to export. You can still rotate crops that will rehab the nutrients and pH of the soil. Which is more than what most countries will be able to do as their climate changes.

Again, do you not understand that people don't need to have relationships where ages match?

Again, you said that the pairing the two would solve the population problems. I'm saying that the surplus of women that Russia has wouldn't help because they are in an age bracket that can not reproduce. Yeah, they could be in a relationship, but not one that's going to effect the population crisis.

Can you explain how pairing an 18 year old Chinese man with a 60 year Russian woman is going to solve the population crisis?

What corruption (more than usual for Ukraine) was there in Poroshenko's election? Weren't there literally thousands of international observers for that election? Similarly, for Yanukovych's election, where was the impact of this so-called interference? International observers were once again present and found no evidence of such wrongdoing. If you go back to 2004, the government had mechanisms to protect against explicit corruption (in case you forget, Yanukovych ended up losing that election in the re-run). Which of these governments are you calling illegitimate because of Russian electoral interference?

It's funny that you have to caveat your criticism in such a way. "more than usual for Ukraine", you can't just say corruption, because of course there was. "where was the impact of this so-called interference?" So there was interference but it wasn't impactful....

You are not making an effort to be academically honest. Purposely repackaging my critique and specifying it to suit your argument. I didn't say election, I said elections. As in whole government, not just the figurehead. Russia has politicians on payroll in every ex Soviet state, from local to state electorates.

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, because crop rotation in the shit show that is northern soil would go so well. Where's the evidence? Many Canadian soil science experts have written off the promise of boreal land: the soil would take decades if not centuries to rehabilitate.

Meanwhile, you don't seem to understand that even small age gaps create marginal imbalances that need to be filled, which (if filled by small age gaps again) leads to a knock-on effect down the population pyramid.

Every government has corruption. Are you surprised by this? In an example that you will understand, US elections are horrendously corrupt because of rampant gerrymandering and no restrictions on corporate PAC donations. However, people still consider US elections to be "fair" and "just." Ukraine's elections have been no more corrupt than they usually are, which I proved to you and am happy to provide more sources for. To which point you... moved the goalposts with no evidence. At least put some effort into your argument, please.

A lack of evidence is either a lack of intelligence or deliberate bad faith.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, because crop rotation in the shit show that is northern soil would go so well. Where's the evidence? Many Canadian soil science experts have written off the promise of boreal land: the soil would take decades if not centuries to rehabilitate.

This has all been an argument about Russia needing Ukraine for food security, despite Russia being one of the largest grain exporters in the world. I'm sorry, I don't think Canadian "soil scientists" are really going to substantiate that kind of reversal.

Meanwhile, you don't seem to understand that even small age gaps create marginal imbalances that need to be filled, which (if filled by small age gaps again) leads to a knock-on effect down the population pyramid.

But we're talking about a huge age gap between two different nations..... not small age gaps within one society. Your age gaps need to be at least compatible, and preferably not thousands of miles away from each other to offset surplus.

Every government has corruption.

Again, you're falsely equivocating the corruption that happens within a country, with corruption being imported by a neighboring country because they want something from you. It's just like what the US does to Mexico.

Ukraine's elections have been no more corrupt than they usually are, which I proved to you and am happy to provide more sources for.

You didnt actually give any sources, you just made statements. Here is an actual example of a source

While the interference did not live up to worst fears, numerous examples of it can be found in the kinetic, disinformation, and cyber realms over a period of months. Russia’s war with Ukraine and its occupation of parts of Ukraine’s territory constitute the most blatant interference, including the disenfranchisement of some 16 percent of the electorate living in Crimea and areas around Donetsk and Luhansk.

[

To which point you... moved the goalposts with no evidence

Pointing out that you made an assumption is moving the goal post?

here](https://kyivindependent.com/investigative-stories-from-ukraine-pro-russian-politicians-under-sanctions-in-us-eu-yet-not-in-ukraine-2/)

A lack of evidence is either a lack of intelligence or deliberate bad faith.

Lol, you say that after already making several unsubstantiated claims?

[-] zephyreks@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Your source is... the Atlantic Council? The same institution that's well known for being a US intelligence front?

The Atlantic Council's six fellows this year come from the Department of State, CIA, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Navy, USIA, and the Congressional Research Service

  • CIA-RDP88B004443R000100550001-3

The Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Graphika all have inadequately-disclosed ties to the Department of Defense, the C.I.A., and other intelligence agencies. They work with multiple U.S. government agencies to institutionalize censorship research and advocacy within dozens of other universities and think tanks.

  • Sworn testimony as part of "The Censorship Industrial Complex," given to the House Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

The Atlantic Council consists of a bunch of warhawks keen on foreign interference:

STEPHEN HADLEY: If I were in my old job I would be thinking about lethal assistance – yes. But you know this is why you have a CIA, you know this is why you have covert action and I would be thinking – do we want to do it explicitly to send a message to Putin? Or do you want to do it covertly? You know I think we tend now to talk too much and act too little. And sometimes it’s good if weapons just start showing up on the battlefield.

Not to mention literally racist:

JAMES CLAPPER: And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique

Glad to know who I'm talking to, I guess. How's the weather in Fort Briggs this time of year?

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Lol. Demands source, offers none in return, doesn't dispute what's said, just the attacking the source itself...... Genius level debate initiated.

Fort Briggs this time of year?

You mean Fort Braggs, Fort Briggs is from an anime my dude? I think I see what happening here...... did you go full Khmer rouge and snap your own glasses in half or something?

[-] redline@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago

could someone get me up to speed on 19fortyfive as a source? where does it fit in the U.S. media landscape?

[-] DesiDebugger@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 year ago
[-] redline@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

well yes, but when I try to put this to less informed peers I'd like a bit more juice than that

[-] DesiDebugger@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

History Founded in 2020, 19fortyfive.com or 1945 is a conservative-leaning website that focuses on defense and USA foreign policy news and analysis. According to their about page, “We seek to hold no one ideology or opinion in favor. We are a non-partisan, non-factional publication. That means we publish a wide range of analysis, opinion, and reporting that is slanted to the left, right, and center. Accordingly, all of our writers and Contributing Editors come from very different backgrounds, many times disagreeing with one another vigorously.”

The website is transparent as they list writers and the editor as J. Beth Gorton.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership 1945 lacks transparency as they do not clearly indicate ownership; however, they appear to be owned by 19FortyFive Group Inc., based in Maryland. Advertising and sponsored content generate revenue for the company.

Source:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/1945-19fortyfive-com/#google_vignette

Basically the ownership is shady due to the fact that we don't know who owns it but it published articles that are considered generally favorable to the MIC.

[-] redline@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
50 points (91.7% liked)

World News

2296 readers
108 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS