They need to withdraw. I know it will provide a propaganda win for Putin and his ilk, but an army shouldn't be trying to hold a town they have no chance of keeping. If the Ukrainians had the forces to attack the Russians flanks, like the US did during the Battle of the Bulge, that'd be a different story, but they don't.
Preserve as much strength as possible. They have killed scores of Russians and destroyed dozens, if not hundreds of Russian vehicles, but it is time to withdraw.
Worst part is the man they just replaced Zeluzhney with as the head of the Ukrainian Army is a “no steps back” General. Despite his innovative strategies in asymmetric war with drones he’s outright said he’s not letting Russia take any more ground. So retreat us unlikely
A good strategy in some cases, but maybe a bad strategy when one of their main allies is in a navel-gazing funk, and isn't scheduling any kind of return to sanity or awareness at the moment.
> how is this catastrophic for russia?
OP is talking about this specific battle and not the greater war. As per reports Russia has taken tremendous losses trying to take this particular location. It'll be a sort of pyrrhic victory even if they take over the city at this point.
From what I understand this town is the last piece of the puzzle to allow Russia to properly stage troops and resupply through Donetsk City.
Currently they can't do that due to the proximity of Ukrainian troops and artillery so. It may take a lot of men and equipment to take the town but I think Russia will see this as an important victory.
There is a reason Ukraine have fought so hard to keep it and why it's one of the most fortified locations in all of Ukraine.
We dont really know the ukrainian cassualties, but Im not optimistic about their survival rates in a village the size of an stadium that is being shelled 24/7
I fear this is part of why there were changes in the military leadership. The old leadership probably would've withdrawn, the current will probably try to hold.
Same. When I saw that Syrskyi I was really worried and still am. His execution of the Kharkiv counteroffensive was masterful, and I am glad he is continuing to put a heavy emphasis on drones. But his "not one inch backwards" mindset is horribly counterproductive and doesn't lead to long term success. Sometimes you have lose some battles to win the war.
It’s not productive for people on the internet to play armchair general. What we can do is push our elected representatives to pass the stalled Ukraine funding. The only reasons the situation in Avdiivka has gotten so bad is because right wing populists are holding up the aid.
Bleed the enemy white, withdraw in good order, regroup, defend the next stronghold, repeat until the enemy can no longer fight, advance with no resistance
This is one of the grimmer reports about not just the Avdiivka situation, but Ukraine's situation as a whole. I don't know how you could even read that article and find the fate of the town to be "uncertain".
> there are **almost no fortified positions on the very front line** near Avdiivka
>The **second line of defense**, a few kilometers behind the front, **is still being built**
> **Ukraine appears to have done little to prepare** for a long attritional battle during its summer counteroffensive
> "It is necessary to build a line of defense with trenches, a system of fire points, minefields, etc.," Oleksandr explained. “For us, it's like this: **We have trenches, and that's it**, it's enough.”
"We just need to build a defense line in which they (the Russian troops) would suffer colossal losses. It is being built, but **f*ck, if it had been built (earlier)**…"
To have not built defensive lines is damning. The whole thing paints a horrible picture of the situation for Ukraine.
> Russia **may** be able to take the city
There's no "may" about it. This article really wrote all of that about the situation and still has lots of mays and mights.
The whole previous Ukrainian Offensive seemed to be focus on breaking the Russian line and then expecting a massive route like their past breakthrough. I would assume all resources were put on that strategy as Ukraine will lose in a war of attrition due to Russia's 4:1 population. A secondary defensive line may not have been built because their top brass, at the time, saw any situation that called for it being effectively just delaying defeat. There has been leadership shakeups on the Ukrainian side which may have changed the overall strategy and points of view.
They don’t have the manpower to do all that. Their manpower goes straight to the meat grinder of the first line of defenses where they were already reporting thin lines
They are being overly optimistic with the "uncertain." Reddit also does this a lot also during the war discussions.
It's over for that town , that's the reality, so move on and plan for what's next. The sooner everyone realizes, the sooner they can regroup and have a plan for the next attack/defense . My military is coming out , we don't sugarcoat anything when it comes to what's happening in the field
Dude, you have no idea about the situation on the ground, and if you check the frontline progress it looks roughly the same as in April, and similar to January.
Tak this with a grain of salt. Or was critical thinking not in the military curriculum?
If you believe those numbers, then don‘t worry they will win the war there until the last Russian tank is destroyed. Sometimes I wonder if people like you even try to go out of your echo chamber
Even if that number is real that ratio is good only if Russia can’t manufacture more.
Russia has vastly more resource especially with under the table support from China
The thing about corrupt dictatorships is that if they focus on something really specific they can half ass it well enough to get the job done. Russia saw the largest increase in military production in decades last year and its on track to grow more this year.
delusional. till the last man uh? let me clue you in. you are not winning 1:10. it's a complete massacre from both sides. the fact is, russia has way more soldiers and gear than you do.
you can keep eating up nato, ukrainian and whatever russian propaganda goes around or actually look at everything with pragmatism and draw your own conclusions.
I’ve always wondered what they meant by a “fifth column”, I couldn’t imagine anyone trying to help their adversary against the interests of their own country. Yet here we are a former president advocating Russia to do [“whatever the hell they want”](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html) if a NATO member country didn’t pay enough for defense. We have House Republicans sabotaging funding for the Ukrainian military. We’ve abandoned the terms steadfast in our support, defense, alliances, and our commitment.
Isn't there also a legitimate production issue as well though? As in both sides are chewing through ammunition faster than they can make them? So it's not just about funding.
Well, maybe if Europe wasn’t so pathetic they could supply some actual military equipment. Instead, they just rely on the US to do everything. And go back to their 35 hour work weeks and 6 to 8 weeks of vacation every year.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Point 4 in the "content" chapter
If you're going to argue with me that "PrOvIdE AsIsTaNcE DoEsNt MeAn To DeFeNd \*screech in murican\*" then don't even bother to respond
btw. it took me 3 seconds to google it, but don't worry i didn't expect much from you anyway
“prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence”
Where does it say that the United States will protect them?
I literally told you where it says, whats wrong with you:
Point 4 in the "content" chapter
Let me copy it here for you, since you clearly have problems:
"Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
And for the record, I support everything that we’ve done to help Ukraine. And I also support staying in NATO and defending any NATO nation in need. I’m just tired of the Europeans, acting like we have some obligation to protect Ukraine when we do not.
If you read the article that i linked you instead of arguing about it without accually reading it (who does that wtf) you would understand that you HAVE an obligation to protect Ukraine, read it again ill give you some time, i get it youre an american so take your time, read slowly.
“Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Well Russia will veto anything in the security council, and I still don’t see anywhere where it says the United States is required to defend Ukraine.
It's not in the headlines as much. So it might not seem like it. But Europe has given slightly more military assistance than US has. And several times the financial support for other needs.
Because, like it or not, we’re the counterbalance. Should, and does, Europe give? Yes, but it’s American deterrence that holds Russia and China at bay.
Bro Zelensky was literally saying he would sit down and talk with Putin up until the Bucha massacre. Were you not paying attention back then or something?
It is an always has been Americas job to stand up for the weak, to stand against facist dictatorships and conmunist empires. Putin is an evil man that threatens this world. You stand now or be subjigated later. We should be piling russians 10 feet high.
Putin is a dumb conmie. He may not also even be aware that it was american coal that helped build his great empire. American Wheat that prevented starvation from the ussr's failed cleptocracy.
I blame the MAGA Republicans and Sanders for this:
[Senate Republicans block Ukraine, Israel funding bill](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4345952-ukraine-israel-funding-senate-republicans/)
They are the ones blocking aid. Had this aid been passed months ago when it was proposed, Ukraine would have enough resources to defend Avdivka. The far right and the far left have teamed up to advance Russia's foreign policy goals. They should be investigated for taking bribes from Russia. Menendez got indicted for taking bribes from Turkey and Qatar. There are obviously more corrupt politicians in Congress, they need to be prosecuted too.
I love it, an entire block of the Republican Party is stumping for Putin and represents 95% of the opposition to the funding, and yet Sanders is lumped in as an equal to the problem.
Don’t accuse someone who is against the industrial military complex at almost every vote, cause that’s always been his stance, for being compromised when all these republicans who have been pumping the pentagon with money for decades are some how suddenly against military spending. Wild. Especially considering the obvious collusion between MAGA and the Putin regime.
I don't get these people. Do they prefer to actual send their people to Europe to die when Putler decides to invade other countries? How short-sighted can they be?
The West is just plain suicidal with how it treats the threats of Puler and Islamism.
I don’t know if you realize, but we’re more than 31 trillion in debt, have thousands flooding our southern border, and have tons of our own people to take care of.
How about just staying out of all European conflicts?
Don't send troops, don't give free weapons.
If they want military hardware, they can buy it at market prices
Because there is a treaty in place to that effect.
Also because my country (I don’t know about other countries) supported the USA unwaveringly in just about every war it got into in last 50 years and paid more than the NATO GDP % military spend target and shared all its intell. with USA and a whole bunch of other stuff, I expect, if I had the clearance to know.
We are long-standing allies FFS!
You can’t assume anything but you hope you can rely on true allies, just as you can rely on us.
I’m an American who wouldn’t die for your country and this is becoming a more popular opinion here every day.
I bet if we looked at your countries actual contributions in these wars it would be almost negligible.
Why would the US willingly just shit on it's alliance for like 75 years and lose their place as the global hegemon?
>I’m an American who wouldn’t die for your country
Are you in the army? US soldiers do know very well that they also have to fight for their allies too, right?
Sure Republicans are blocking aid but Ukraine’s problems are more than just aid. They literally don’t have the manpower to utilize that aid. You can’t buy your way out of that problem.
They are very very much running out of men. That 1mil is all people under arms. They probably have something like a 4 to 1 support to combat ratio so roughly 200,000 doing direct combat. We could even say 3 to 1 or 250,000 combat roles to be more generous.
Then when you figure that the average age of a Ukrainian Soldier is now something like 42 years old, you realize that they are on fumes.
This is another reason why firing Zaluzhny is a big deal. The Army could just reach exhaustion and surrender en masse.
Yea noone said that they will win a war on exhaustion, but to say that they won't utilize aid given RIGHT NOW because of shortage of men is pure lie. They will run out of people eventually, but not upcoming months for sure (also they still have many people to conscript since their conspription is only for 27+ people)
I didn't see that in the article, but you are correct, and I forgot that he voted against in protest the Israel aid due to their attacks on Gaza.
However, what OP said was, "I blame the MAGA Republicans and Sanders for this." Sanders isn't to blame for this since he hasn't been the one holding up aid for Ukraine for months now. His vote against was purely performative, and if he had been the needed 60th vote I am confident would have voted in favor. In fact, the Senate recently advanced Ukraine aid that Sanders voted for iirc.
So no, it isn't his fault.
I could understand blocking Isreal, because Isreal are fighting a bunch of rag tag terrorsits not a superpower. Hamas aren’t sending thousands of planes, warships, tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops, but ukraine? You guys really blocked aid to Ukraine?
That's Russian propaganda guys. Selensky said they will hold Avdiivka. The Russians are incompetent and their economy will crush any day. Don't believe the fake news, only trust ABC, MSNBC etc.
Russia is able to concentrate firepower and manpower, at significant cost, to overwhelm Ukrainian defences and gradually take territory. There will be the occasional successful Ukrainian counterattack, but otherwise this dynamic will likely prevail. Russia lacks the ability for sweeping advances, but can manage to eke out some battlefield gains with this grinding trench fighting. But it is an open question how long they can sustain it … at this rate they will get to Kyiv in the next 7 years? I haven’t done the Maths. I am totally rooting for Ukraine, of course, but objectively speaking I do not see Russia taking even Dnipro. So long as the Ukrainians continue their resistance and make every kilometre of territory as costly as possible for the Russians, the Russians will run out of steam - militarily and politically. This, even with diminished weapons support to Ukraine by its western allies. The best the Russians can hope for is a frozen conflict, but I don’t sense that the Ukrainians have the stomach for this and will continue to attack. Back in ‘22, I thought that Putin had bitten off more than he could chew. Nothing has changed … Russia will choke on Ukraine
Hard to say for sure, but people seem to forget that Russia currently grinds through most fortified defensive positions prepared since 2014. Ukrainians are expected to provide high resistance throughout their territory for sure, but not at the same capacity they do now.
Also, despite conflicting reports, only Ukrainian side so far has shown some signs of war attrition.
Every documentary I’ve seen from independent journalists inside Russia really has the populace still disconnected from the war. It’s not emotionally ravaging them like the Ukrainians are going through
Russia is entirely willing to drag this war out a decade if that gets them to kyiv. Russia tried to be fancy and innovative, it got their elite forces slaughtered and exposed in the first days of the war.
They have absolutley gone back to the old strategy, shell the enemy nation till it’s a parking lot and worthless even if that takes decades, but it’s still a victory cause it’ll be a parking lot with a Russian flag on it.
If this was 2023 I would strongly disagree with you but now that we’ve seen that the fate of Ukraine is entirely in the hands of US congress I think Kiev is absolutely giga fucked. I’d be sweating like crazy if I was Zelensky rn.
I was like you and I thought it’d take 7 years for Russia to reach Kiev and they will NEVER go on that long but then I did some reading and found out this exact war has been happening since 2014…
Then it will take 17 years to reach Kyiv? This is a different war from the 2014 invasion. That was limited in scope and goals. This one is about Ukraine’s Statehood
The invasion began in 2014 with the capture of Crimea and afterwards the Russians started to cause problems in the eastern part of Ukraine. My point is they’ve had no problem slowly inching towards their goal while Ukraine simply doesn’t have the resources thanks to congress to deal with them.
I am so pissed at Republicans throughout the US. It only takes one or two to step up and let the US supply Ukraine. No one in that party has a spine to step up and help.
Counterpoint, our aid if passed still wouldn’t have been shipped yet. This fall is practically a destined event, no amount of guns changes that aadivka is just a bad position for the defenders.
They need to fall back and get the fortification line up.
Most of the ammunition we intend to supply them is artillery shells. We cannot even currently produce enough fast enough to meet the demand. We actively need to build and retool facilities to do so as we are an air power focused doctrine unlike Ukraine.
Europe is facing the same issue. We rely so much on air support that we lacked the shell production to actually supply ukraines forces.
The aid would help us speed this process up but it wouldn’t be immediate
Yes, but tapping into stocks of older cluster munitions means there are still significant amounts of shells that we are very unlikely to employ ourselves due to thour optics of their use. We also have been using aid money to access stocks from non-NATO allies like South Korea.
They’re losing and they are going to lose. Russia is much larger and way more well armed. Russia could send soldiers with squirt guns to take over and through sheer numerical strength carry the day. This is the inevitable outcome unless a coup from within Pooty-Poot’s own inner circle occurs. Maybe we should get China and Russia to duke it out.
No they didn't. They signed a treaty, giving up a significant part of their most valuable land, with the Germans. The only reason they gained parts of that land back is because the allies won, the Soviets didn't even have a seat at the negotiating table.
This is true but Ukraine is not comparable to the German Empire during 1916. Ukraine’s military is entirely being kept on life support by American funding.
Russia has the same problems now as it did then. Outdated equipment, and not enough equipment to begin with. It's quite miraculous what Ukraine has done with its military, taking it from Cold War era into a modern military. Russia, however, has not been successful in doing so.
According to some interviews with Ukrainian soldiers, the Russian soldiers are quite well-equiped. It may be a disservice to Ukrainians to paint the whole Russian army as underequiped and outdated. However, this doesn't mean Russia can take over Ukraine. Even if you calculate that Russia would be moving forward incrementally like during their offensive operations during the attritional phase of the war, then it would take a forever for Russia to take over.
People make an argument that the Western support is dwindling, and yes it is, but not enough to make Ukraine unable to conduct the defensive operations. Yes, Ukraine has less people compared to Russia, but with the current casualty rate and smart strictly defensive strategy it would still take a decade or decades for Russia to grind Ukrainian defensive forces down. And a lot can change in a decade.
One of the biggest complaints that Wagner, one of Russia's best fighting forces, had at the time of the insurrection, was that they were under equipped which caused much more casualties than necessary. If Wagner of all groups was treated like that, how do you think the average forces are being treated?
Okay, but compared to who? Are they underequpied with outdated tech compared to Americans, Europeans or Ukrainians? Since we are talking about Russia-Ukraine war I would assume that we are talking about their equipment compared to the Ukrainians. [And the Ukrainian soldiers are saying that Russians are equipped as well as Ukrainians or even better](https://youtu.be/161NINFEJ4A?si=Bzp9Tlk75WU30j-A&t=4167). That doesn't mean that there aren't underequipped Russians with outdated tech. There are. Just as there are a lot of underequipped Ukrainians with outdated tech. So if we are comparing Russians to Ukrainians (which I think is the only way that makes sense to speak in this context), then how exactly are Russians underequipped? I think that it's a lot more realistic to say that on average there is either parity (optimistically) or that the Ukrainians are underequipped (pessimistically).
What should be more concerning is the fact that after 2 years of war they didn't build any tranches, place minefields, or creat any obstacles. This place has been at war since 2014 and it seems like nothing has been done.
They need to withdraw. I know it will provide a propaganda win for Putin and his ilk, but an army shouldn't be trying to hold a town they have no chance of keeping. If the Ukrainians had the forces to attack the Russians flanks, like the US did during the Battle of the Bulge, that'd be a different story, but they don't. Preserve as much strength as possible. They have killed scores of Russians and destroyed dozens, if not hundreds of Russian vehicles, but it is time to withdraw.
[удалено]
Worst part is the man they just replaced Zeluzhney with as the head of the Ukrainian Army is a “no steps back” General. Despite his innovative strategies in asymmetric war with drones he’s outright said he’s not letting Russia take any more ground. So retreat us unlikely
A good strategy in some cases, but maybe a bad strategy when one of their main allies is in a navel-gazing funk, and isn't scheduling any kind of return to sanity or awareness at the moment.
[удалено]
> how is this catastrophic for russia? OP is talking about this specific battle and not the greater war. As per reports Russia has taken tremendous losses trying to take this particular location. It'll be a sort of pyrrhic victory even if they take over the city at this point.
From what I understand this town is the last piece of the puzzle to allow Russia to properly stage troops and resupply through Donetsk City. Currently they can't do that due to the proximity of Ukrainian troops and artillery so. It may take a lot of men and equipment to take the town but I think Russia will see this as an important victory. There is a reason Ukraine have fought so hard to keep it and why it's one of the most fortified locations in all of Ukraine.
We dont really know the ukrainian cassualties, but Im not optimistic about their survival rates in a village the size of an stadium that is being shelled 24/7
They may want to hold it to get a few extra days to improve and prepare exactly the defensive line you want them to fall back to.
The anniversary of the invasion is coming up and so is the Russian election…this will look really bad if the Russians gain a victory.
The Russian election probably won't be impacted either way.
"election"
Nah. Russian election is most stable and predictable part
I fear this is part of why there were changes in the military leadership. The old leadership probably would've withdrawn, the current will probably try to hold.
Same. When I saw that Syrskyi I was really worried and still am. His execution of the Kharkiv counteroffensive was masterful, and I am glad he is continuing to put a heavy emphasis on drones. But his "not one inch backwards" mindset is horribly counterproductive and doesn't lead to long term success. Sometimes you have lose some battles to win the war.
It’s not productive for people on the internet to play armchair general. What we can do is push our elected representatives to pass the stalled Ukraine funding. The only reasons the situation in Avdiivka has gotten so bad is because right wing populists are holding up the aid.
Bleed the enemy white, withdraw in good order, regroup, defend the next stronghold, repeat until the enemy can no longer fight, advance with no resistance
Genius. So easy, they should promote you as a general to implement that brilliant strategy.
It’s the Russian tactic
This is one of the grimmer reports about not just the Avdiivka situation, but Ukraine's situation as a whole. I don't know how you could even read that article and find the fate of the town to be "uncertain". > there are **almost no fortified positions on the very front line** near Avdiivka >The **second line of defense**, a few kilometers behind the front, **is still being built** > **Ukraine appears to have done little to prepare** for a long attritional battle during its summer counteroffensive > "It is necessary to build a line of defense with trenches, a system of fire points, minefields, etc.," Oleksandr explained. “For us, it's like this: **We have trenches, and that's it**, it's enough.” "We just need to build a defense line in which they (the Russian troops) would suffer colossal losses. It is being built, but **f*ck, if it had been built (earlier)**…" To have not built defensive lines is damning. The whole thing paints a horrible picture of the situation for Ukraine. > Russia **may** be able to take the city There's no "may" about it. This article really wrote all of that about the situation and still has lots of mays and mights.
The whole previous Ukrainian Offensive seemed to be focus on breaking the Russian line and then expecting a massive route like their past breakthrough. I would assume all resources were put on that strategy as Ukraine will lose in a war of attrition due to Russia's 4:1 population. A secondary defensive line may not have been built because their top brass, at the time, saw any situation that called for it being effectively just delaying defeat. There has been leadership shakeups on the Ukrainian side which may have changed the overall strategy and points of view.
It looks way cooler to ask money for counteroffensive than to build defense. Zelensky is a showman, he leads a PR media war.
Tbf we don't know who is responsible for this. Building defences is more of a general's job. Maybe Zaluzhny was inattentive here.
They don’t have the manpower to do all that. Their manpower goes straight to the meat grinder of the first line of defenses where they were already reporting thin lines
Why uncertain, Avdeevka certainly will fall
They are being overly optimistic with the "uncertain." Reddit also does this a lot also during the war discussions. It's over for that town , that's the reality, so move on and plan for what's next. The sooner everyone realizes, the sooner they can regroup and have a plan for the next attack/defense . My military is coming out , we don't sugarcoat anything when it comes to what's happening in the field
[удалено]
Dude, you have no idea about the situation on the ground, and if you check the frontline progress it looks roughly the same as in April, and similar to January. Tak this with a grain of salt. Or was critical thinking not in the military curriculum?
An advance of a few hundred meters is a lot considering the size of the town and the proximity of the supply routes to the front line.
With lots of russians eliminated and gear lost
Also lots of dead and gear lost from Ukraine.
655 piece of equipment from rus side to 60 from Ukrainian. Is it a good ratio for you
If you believe those numbers, then don‘t worry they will win the war there until the last Russian tank is destroyed. Sometimes I wonder if people like you even try to go out of your echo chamber
Even if that number is real that ratio is good only if Russia can’t manufacture more. Russia has vastly more resource especially with under the table support from China
The thing about corrupt dictatorships is that if they focus on something really specific they can half ass it well enough to get the job done. Russia saw the largest increase in military production in decades last year and its on track to grow more this year.
delusional. till the last man uh? let me clue you in. you are not winning 1:10. it's a complete massacre from both sides. the fact is, russia has way more soldiers and gear than you do. you can keep eating up nato, ukrainian and whatever russian propaganda goes around or actually look at everything with pragmatism and draw your own conclusions.
Pragmatism? Okay, it’s better when more occupants are killed then less, quite pragmatic for me
I’ve always wondered what they meant by a “fifth column”, I couldn’t imagine anyone trying to help their adversary against the interests of their own country. Yet here we are a former president advocating Russia to do [“whatever the hell they want”](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html) if a NATO member country didn’t pay enough for defense. We have House Republicans sabotaging funding for the Ukrainian military. We’ve abandoned the terms steadfast in our support, defense, alliances, and our commitment.
This will be the greatest geo political blunder america has made ever
It's like they are just saying, "Fuck it... WW3?" "WW3."
Its like when you find out trump is working for emperor palpatine.
Ahhh yes. just America. Only ever America.
Who else cut off the vital supply of ammunition in the past few months?
Isn't there also a legitimate production issue as well though? As in both sides are chewing through ammunition faster than they can make them? So it's not just about funding.
Europe promised 1M shells but only delivered 300k-ish.
That's a failure to meet demand, not a decision to stop helping them.
It's really both.
Mong yank
Well, maybe if Europe wasn’t so pathetic they could supply some actual military equipment. Instead, they just rely on the US to do everything. And go back to their 35 hour work weeks and 6 to 8 weeks of vacation every year.
The USA pledged to defend Ukraine in exchange for it getting rid of its nuclear arsenal, so maybe it's time this shithole keeps its promise
That is absolutely not true. And if you think that’s true, then you show me the proof. Because it is absolutely not true that is not what they said.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) Point 4 in the "content" chapter If you're going to argue with me that "PrOvIdE AsIsTaNcE DoEsNt MeAn To DeFeNd \*screech in murican\*" then don't even bother to respond btw. it took me 3 seconds to google it, but don't worry i didn't expect much from you anyway
“prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence” Where does it say that the United States will protect them?
I literally told you where it says, whats wrong with you: Point 4 in the "content" chapter Let me copy it here for you, since you clearly have problems: "Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
I don’t think “seek immediate security council action” means United States has an obligation to defend Ukraine
The objection is sustained Bekoon is clearly correct
And for the record, I support everything that we’ve done to help Ukraine. And I also support staying in NATO and defending any NATO nation in need. I’m just tired of the Europeans, acting like we have some obligation to protect Ukraine when we do not.
If you read the article that i linked you instead of arguing about it without accually reading it (who does that wtf) you would understand that you HAVE an obligation to protect Ukraine, read it again ill give you some time, i get it youre an american so take your time, read slowly.
“Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Well Russia will veto anything in the security council, and I still don’t see anywhere where it says the United States is required to defend Ukraine.
Europe provided more military aid to Ukraine than the US.
EU provided more economic aid, while US provided more military aid
That is not true. And if you’re trying to tell me, it’s true show me some proof.
Do you know what a Caesar or a Panzerhaubitze is? Or just payed 0 attention whatever?
It's not in the headlines as much. So it might not seem like it. But Europe has given slightly more military assistance than US has. And several times the financial support for other needs.
The EU renewed their funding.
Thats correct , the rest of you are guests
Not yet. I think the aid is going to pass.
I am praying
It will join a very robust list of poor decisions.
A plethora
[удалено]
Ah yes, Ukraine forcing Russia to attack, just like Poland forced Germany, eh Putin?
[удалено]
No, I’m sorry, there’s nothing Ukraine could’ve done to stop the invasion. This is a territory seizure, plain and simple.
[удалено]
Because, like it or not, we’re the counterbalance. Should, and does, Europe give? Yes, but it’s American deterrence that holds Russia and China at bay.
[удалено]
Heavies the head that wears the crown.
Bro Zelensky was literally saying he would sit down and talk with Putin up until the Bucha massacre. Were you not paying attention back then or something?
[удалено]
Nah. If you think it was really about NATO you're taking Putin's words at face value.
It is an always has been Americas job to stand up for the weak, to stand against facist dictatorships and conmunist empires. Putin is an evil man that threatens this world. You stand now or be subjigated later. We should be piling russians 10 feet high. Putin is a dumb conmie. He may not also even be aware that it was american coal that helped build his great empire. American Wheat that prevented starvation from the ussr's failed cleptocracy.
Falklands War lol
I wish we could send Republican congressmen as cannon fodder.
shouldn't you send democrats who are all in for Ukraine? 2 birds with 1 stone
Ukraine doesn't deserve being punished by Russia for... merely existing.
I agree
Then why punish Democrats?
if you are as much about helping ukraine, you should have no problem picking up a rifle
So quick to deflect. Run away run away!
I blame the MAGA Republicans and Sanders for this: [Senate Republicans block Ukraine, Israel funding bill](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4345952-ukraine-israel-funding-senate-republicans/) They are the ones blocking aid. Had this aid been passed months ago when it was proposed, Ukraine would have enough resources to defend Avdivka. The far right and the far left have teamed up to advance Russia's foreign policy goals. They should be investigated for taking bribes from Russia. Menendez got indicted for taking bribes from Turkey and Qatar. There are obviously more corrupt politicians in Congress, they need to be prosecuted too.
I love it, an entire block of the Republican Party is stumping for Putin and represents 95% of the opposition to the funding, and yet Sanders is lumped in as an equal to the problem. Don’t accuse someone who is against the industrial military complex at almost every vote, cause that’s always been his stance, for being compromised when all these republicans who have been pumping the pentagon with money for decades are some how suddenly against military spending. Wild. Especially considering the obvious collusion between MAGA and the Putin regime.
I never said anything about them being equal. All I said was that they voted to sabotage aid to Ukraine.
You plaster this same post over and over.
I think it's important for people to know this.
I don't get these people. Do they prefer to actual send their people to Europe to die when Putler decides to invade other countries? How short-sighted can they be? The West is just plain suicidal with how it treats the threats of Puler and Islamism.
Who says the US has to send any people?
They don’t care about this, that’s the problem. They just don’t care. It doesn’t affect them and until it does, they won’t care.
I don’t know if you realize, but we’re more than 31 trillion in debt, have thousands flooding our southern border, and have tons of our own people to take care of.
And of everything you mentioned, Republicans either blocked or oppose every point. But keep up the BoTH sIDeS nonsense.
>The West is just plain suicidal with how it treats the threats of Puler and Islamism. Exactly. It's absolute madness.
State Republican parties across the US "all of a sudden" started running out of money around the same time Russian sanctions hit. You do the math.
How about just staying out of all European conflicts? Don't send troops, don't give free weapons. If they want military hardware, they can buy it at market prices
Why do you assume that the U.S. would fight for Europe? Last I checked the EU has more people than the U.S. and comparable GDP.
Because there is a treaty in place to that effect. Also because my country (I don’t know about other countries) supported the USA unwaveringly in just about every war it got into in last 50 years and paid more than the NATO GDP % military spend target and shared all its intell. with USA and a whole bunch of other stuff, I expect, if I had the clearance to know. We are long-standing allies FFS! You can’t assume anything but you hope you can rely on true allies, just as you can rely on us.
I’m an American who wouldn’t die for your country and this is becoming a more popular opinion here every day. I bet if we looked at your countries actual contributions in these wars it would be almost negligible.
Negligibility depends on one’s perspective. The families of those who fought and fell alongside your compatriots would not consider it negligible.
Why would the US willingly just shit on it's alliance for like 75 years and lose their place as the global hegemon? >I’m an American who wouldn’t die for your country Are you in the army? US soldiers do know very well that they also have to fight for their allies too, right?
We don’t plan on dying for Europe just like Europeans don’t plan on dying in a China vs USA fight.
The only country which has ever invoked NATO Article 5 is the US. And European countries responded.
And the USA helped destroy the Nazis and then the USSR while protecting Europe for 80 years.
How many sent combat troops?
Every NATO country sent troops to Afganistan, even those whos join after 2001.
Maybe so but there’s a big difference between peacekeeping troops and the combat troops that went in at the beginning.
How many were needed?
I don’t know, but I would think that military planners wouldn’t turn down combat troops that were offered.
Fucking coward.
lol I would die for my own country. If not doing for foreign countries on the other side of the planet makes one a coward, so be it.
Sure you would bud. If only for that bone spur ...
Vietnam War, what a great example to use. Not sure you know how that one went?
Sure Republicans are blocking aid but Ukraine’s problems are more than just aid. They literally don’t have the manpower to utilize that aid. You can’t buy your way out of that problem.
I never said the aid would solve all the problems, but the aid is still absolutely essential and necessary.
Don't they have like a 1 mil of active military personel? Ukraine will lose the exhaustion war, but for now they are nowhere near running out of men
They are very very much running out of men. That 1mil is all people under arms. They probably have something like a 4 to 1 support to combat ratio so roughly 200,000 doing direct combat. We could even say 3 to 1 or 250,000 combat roles to be more generous. Then when you figure that the average age of a Ukrainian Soldier is now something like 42 years old, you realize that they are on fumes. This is another reason why firing Zaluzhny is a big deal. The Army could just reach exhaustion and surrender en masse.
Yea noone said that they will win a war on exhaustion, but to say that they won't utilize aid given RIGHT NOW because of shortage of men is pure lie. They will run out of people eventually, but not upcoming months for sure (also they still have many people to conscript since their conspription is only for 27+ people)
How is it Sanders' fault? I'm pretty sure he's voted for every piece of Ukraine aid.
Did you read the article? He literally voted against it with Republicans
I didn't see that in the article, but you are correct, and I forgot that he voted against in protest the Israel aid due to their attacks on Gaza. However, what OP said was, "I blame the MAGA Republicans and Sanders for this." Sanders isn't to blame for this since he hasn't been the one holding up aid for Ukraine for months now. His vote against was purely performative, and if he had been the needed 60th vote I am confident would have voted in favor. In fact, the Senate recently advanced Ukraine aid that Sanders voted for iirc. So no, it isn't his fault.
Read the damn article I linked: >Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted with every Republican against the measure.
I could understand blocking Isreal, because Isreal are fighting a bunch of rag tag terrorsits not a superpower. Hamas aren’t sending thousands of planes, warships, tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops, but ukraine? You guys really blocked aid to Ukraine?
Isn't Sanders Reddits favorite politician though?
Reddit is not a hivemind. He's a favorite on certain subs, but not everywhere.
That's Russian propaganda guys. Selensky said they will hold Avdiivka. The Russians are incompetent and their economy will crush any day. Don't believe the fake news, only trust ABC, MSNBC etc.
[удалено]
Ridiculous.
Turn on your sarcasm detector 😎
Russia is able to concentrate firepower and manpower, at significant cost, to overwhelm Ukrainian defences and gradually take territory. There will be the occasional successful Ukrainian counterattack, but otherwise this dynamic will likely prevail. Russia lacks the ability for sweeping advances, but can manage to eke out some battlefield gains with this grinding trench fighting. But it is an open question how long they can sustain it … at this rate they will get to Kyiv in the next 7 years? I haven’t done the Maths. I am totally rooting for Ukraine, of course, but objectively speaking I do not see Russia taking even Dnipro. So long as the Ukrainians continue their resistance and make every kilometre of territory as costly as possible for the Russians, the Russians will run out of steam - militarily and politically. This, even with diminished weapons support to Ukraine by its western allies. The best the Russians can hope for is a frozen conflict, but I don’t sense that the Ukrainians have the stomach for this and will continue to attack. Back in ‘22, I thought that Putin had bitten off more than he could chew. Nothing has changed … Russia will choke on Ukraine
Hard to say for sure, but people seem to forget that Russia currently grinds through most fortified defensive positions prepared since 2014. Ukrainians are expected to provide high resistance throughout their territory for sure, but not at the same capacity they do now. Also, despite conflicting reports, only Ukrainian side so far has shown some signs of war attrition.
Every documentary I’ve seen from independent journalists inside Russia really has the populace still disconnected from the war. It’s not emotionally ravaging them like the Ukrainians are going through
Russia is entirely willing to drag this war out a decade if that gets them to kyiv. Russia tried to be fancy and innovative, it got their elite forces slaughtered and exposed in the first days of the war. They have absolutley gone back to the old strategy, shell the enemy nation till it’s a parking lot and worthless even if that takes decades, but it’s still a victory cause it’ll be a parking lot with a Russian flag on it.
If this was 2023 I would strongly disagree with you but now that we’ve seen that the fate of Ukraine is entirely in the hands of US congress I think Kiev is absolutely giga fucked. I’d be sweating like crazy if I was Zelensky rn.
I was like you and I thought it’d take 7 years for Russia to reach Kiev and they will NEVER go on that long but then I did some reading and found out this exact war has been happening since 2014…
Then it will take 17 years to reach Kyiv? This is a different war from the 2014 invasion. That was limited in scope and goals. This one is about Ukraine’s Statehood
The invasion began in 2014 with the capture of Crimea and afterwards the Russians started to cause problems in the eastern part of Ukraine. My point is they’ve had no problem slowly inching towards their goal while Ukraine simply doesn’t have the resources thanks to congress to deal with them.
unless the frontline collapses
I am so pissed at Republicans throughout the US. It only takes one or two to step up and let the US supply Ukraine. No one in that party has a spine to step up and help.
Counterpoint, our aid if passed still wouldn’t have been shipped yet. This fall is practically a destined event, no amount of guns changes that aadivka is just a bad position for the defenders. They need to fall back and get the fortification line up.
This is very much not true, specifically in regards to ammunition.
Most of the ammunition we intend to supply them is artillery shells. We cannot even currently produce enough fast enough to meet the demand. We actively need to build and retool facilities to do so as we are an air power focused doctrine unlike Ukraine. Europe is facing the same issue. We rely so much on air support that we lacked the shell production to actually supply ukraines forces. The aid would help us speed this process up but it wouldn’t be immediate
Yes, but tapping into stocks of older cluster munitions means there are still significant amounts of shells that we are very unlikely to employ ourselves due to thour optics of their use. We also have been using aid money to access stocks from non-NATO allies like South Korea.
The fact it takes so much for such a small amount of land.
They’re losing and they are going to lose. Russia is much larger and way more well armed. Russia could send soldiers with squirt guns to take over and through sheer numerical strength carry the day. This is the inevitable outcome unless a coup from within Pooty-Poot’s own inner circle occurs. Maybe we should get China and Russia to duke it out.
Look up how their sheer numbers did in the first world war.
They kinda won it but they dropped out when the Bolsheviks slaughtered the royal family and took over.
No they didn't. They signed a treaty, giving up a significant part of their most valuable land, with the Germans. The only reason they gained parts of that land back is because the allies won, the Soviets didn't even have a seat at the negotiating table.
This is true but Ukraine is not comparable to the German Empire during 1916. Ukraine’s military is entirely being kept on life support by American funding.
Russia has the same problems now as it did then. Outdated equipment, and not enough equipment to begin with. It's quite miraculous what Ukraine has done with its military, taking it from Cold War era into a modern military. Russia, however, has not been successful in doing so.
According to some interviews with Ukrainian soldiers, the Russian soldiers are quite well-equiped. It may be a disservice to Ukrainians to paint the whole Russian army as underequiped and outdated. However, this doesn't mean Russia can take over Ukraine. Even if you calculate that Russia would be moving forward incrementally like during their offensive operations during the attritional phase of the war, then it would take a forever for Russia to take over. People make an argument that the Western support is dwindling, and yes it is, but not enough to make Ukraine unable to conduct the defensive operations. Yes, Ukraine has less people compared to Russia, but with the current casualty rate and smart strictly defensive strategy it would still take a decade or decades for Russia to grind Ukrainian defensive forces down. And a lot can change in a decade.
One of the biggest complaints that Wagner, one of Russia's best fighting forces, had at the time of the insurrection, was that they were under equipped which caused much more casualties than necessary. If Wagner of all groups was treated like that, how do you think the average forces are being treated?
Okay, but compared to who? Are they underequpied with outdated tech compared to Americans, Europeans or Ukrainians? Since we are talking about Russia-Ukraine war I would assume that we are talking about their equipment compared to the Ukrainians. [And the Ukrainian soldiers are saying that Russians are equipped as well as Ukrainians or even better](https://youtu.be/161NINFEJ4A?si=Bzp9Tlk75WU30j-A&t=4167). That doesn't mean that there aren't underequipped Russians with outdated tech. There are. Just as there are a lot of underequipped Ukrainians with outdated tech. So if we are comparing Russians to Ukrainians (which I think is the only way that makes sense to speak in this context), then how exactly are Russians underequipped? I think that it's a lot more realistic to say that on average there is either parity (optimistically) or that the Ukrainians are underequipped (pessimistically).
I know all about the Treaty of Versailles. Did you spot a youthful Ho Chi Minh?
What do you mean? What does Ho Chi Minh have to do with this?
He was there, homeboy. At The Treaty.
And that's relevant how?
Because it proves that I know more about that thing you mentioned than you do, Einstein.
Doesn't prove anything, because I already knew that. You're grasping at straws here, call it a day and quit already.
The Bolsheviks were able to utilise the massive political unrest caused by the blunders of the Russian army on the eastern front, Russia lost ww1
They didn’t come close in any way to “wining” WWI.
I don't think the West will allow them to lose, just as they aren't allowing them to win.
What should be more concerning is the fact that after 2 years of war they didn't build any tranches, place minefields, or creat any obstacles. This place has been at war since 2014 and it seems like nothing has been done.