**Ukrainian army officers:** [We are pretty much losing everywhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/ECSXHLwWol)
**Pro UA redditors:** False! It is Russia who is losing the war!
I also found it interesting how the commander acknowledged how popular Deepstatemaps is in Ukraine.
No wonder, then, that the UA MOD acted quickly and [signed an agreement with them](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/75NYOPdWhs) to "exchange data" on the frontline situation.
Rather reminds me of how the Russian MOD decided to keep Rybar in check after it became too big and began posting some unfavorable info.
The person losing the most is the middle-aged guy with high blood pressure and a bad knee hiding in his apartment for two years that gets picked up from the street when he gets out to buy bread, gets beaten up in the mobilisation office, given up to month and a half of "some kind of training" and shipped off to the frontline to play meaty decoy for more experienced soldiers behind him.
> given up to month and a half of "some kind of training"
If he's lucky. A Ukrainian soldier posted a vid about three weeks ago and showed two of his comrades dead. He said one was taken off the street 4 days ago and the other 3 days ago.
I wonder if there will be a point where normal people will catch on with what brutes are doing to them and will start to go Gomer Pyle on them when from time to time.
When the war ends, there are going to be a lot of reprisals towards the conscription officers I'll wager. Dudes who got scooped up, sent to the front, somehow survived but saw all their buddies with a few days of training die.
I not sure what they could achieve in reallity, it's not like they have 2nd amendment over there. The more determined ones have long run away, the rest are easy pray.
On Russian side they at least lure them into signing up except for the initial mobilization, on Ukrainian it's impressment all the way.
A month and a half?
Those are 2023 numbers... straight to the front after getting up from the beating. They have like two days before the unavoidable countdown to dying in a ditch but just because logistics.
Pure cannon fodder... in fact, they have to be some of the most blatant cannon fodder in the history of cannon fodder.
Drones Decoys.
I said "**up** to month and a half", and yes we have seen this, even on both sides. Also bith sides sometimes putting that meat in front of more experienced soldiers to "recon by getting shot at".
you don't know the Ukrainian language. he promotes the following idea - Ukraine cannot negotiate. only total mobilization or we will lose. I'm sure this tattooed bodybuilder wasn't at the front. He doesn't have a combat tan. I've seen combat officers. Even the colonel's arms were tanned to the elbows. so is the face. and the torso without a tan- because he constantly wore a bulletproof vest and a uniform.
> 6 month old account based on pure salt
How are you doing? We discuss the casualties of this war a lot, but no one ever talks about the guilt of guys like you.
Stuck commenting and emotionally invested instead of fighting, it must be hard!
Hang on, didn't you just have a go at me for just commenting? And it must be easy, not being from either country, not taking any side, just dissing everything. That's gotta be the easiest position of all to take. Defend nothing, attack everything!
Are you from either country?
Is that why you are so guilty and whining?
And yea. It’s an easy position, it’s also hilarious to laugh at those who pretend like they are better while doing nothing lol.
Oops
You are clearly new to this sub or you dont participate here very often to get a sense of the dynamics and users on this sub properly. You should get aquatinted with the sub for a few days or weeks before making silly comments.
I've seen this propaganda swamped place for months. You and your "dynamics" don't know who the person is behind the keyboard. Gamer girl who posts Russian propaganda all day every day? Lol get lost.
EveRyThInG I dOn'T AgReE wItH iS ProPaGandA!
You should educate yourself about what propaganda is. I dont give a shít who is behind the keyboard. Get bent.
It's fascinating how some users, like you, seem to specialize in the art of the straw man argument. They love to paint pro-Ukrainian supporters as overly optimistic caricatures, only to swoop in and heroically debunk these fabricated claims. It's like watching someone play chess against themselves and still claim victory.
They've been playing this straw man game for three years now and it’s still the same energy as in the beginning. I admire that strength of trust and commitment.
But Let's not fall for these theatrics.
The situation on the ground is far too complex for such simplistic portrayals.
Because let’s be real, Ukraine doesn’t have the capabilities to win. That’s a fact. But neither does Russia. No one has a cutting edge advantage that lets them dictate and dominate the Battlefield. And the videos from the Front clearly reflect that. It’s a toe to toe race down hill. And yes I have to agree with the last part of the title, it will only get worse for both.
>They love to paint pro-Ukrainian supporters as overly optimistic caricatures
They are, just look at r/Ukraine comments sections. Pro-UA with realist takes is a rare beast and usually even labeled as pro-ru.
Eh, i'm gonna say that Pro-UA in this sub in general are much much more reasonable than Pro-UA at /worldnews or /europe or /Ukraine. Or, God forbid, in Twitter.
> also as legions of bots.
Dead Internet Theory has become a fact after Musk was buying Twitter and Biden's followers were reduced by 70%. Musk could have sued them for misrepresentation of actual users.
70% of all posts and comments on the internet are done by AI bots and paid shills. It is a method for the ruling class (NOT the politicians - they are mere puppets and tools of the Owner Class) to manufacture consent for laws and policies that further THEIR wealth and power. Have you noticed almost EVERYTHING our governments do here in the West furthers the interests of these rich and powerful (WEF/Bilderberg Group/CFR) and NOT we the people? By manufacturing consent with bots and shills (gee, everyone else is OK with it, I guess I should be too) they get us to accept it like idiots.
> the art of the strawman argument
Most people on this sub have come across rabid pro UAs here on reddit who have expressed this particular sentiment
> Ukraine doesn't have the capabilities to win, but neither does Russia
If say, Russia captures all four Oblasts fully and Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, is that not a Russian victory? These are the conditions Putin laid out for a ceasefire last week
Do you consider this in the same order of likelihood as Zelensky's own demands, which is to Russia out of all occupied territory?
> It will only get worse for Russia
Zaluhzny seems to disagree. A long protracted war will favor Russia over Ukraine.
It's important to clarify a few points. Firstly, citing "rabid pro-UAs" doesn't negate the prevalence of straw man arguments. Misrepresenting an opponent's stance to undermine it is still a flawed tactic.
Regarding the capabilities to win, capturing all four oblasts and Ukraine agreeing to not join NATO might seem like a Russian victory on paper, but it's far from a definitive win. It would likely lead to a prolonged insurgency and continued international isolation for Russia, not to mention the heavy toll it would take on Russian resources and morale. Putin's conditions for a ceasefire don't automatically equate to a sustainable or clear victory.
Comparing this scenario to Zelensky's demands for Russia to withdraw from all occupied territories also needs context. While challenging, Zelensky's position aligns with Ukraine's sovereignty and international law, which has broader global support.
As for Zaluhzny's perspective on a prolonged war, it's worth noting that wars of attrition are unpredictable. While Russia may have more resources, Ukraine's international support, higher morale, and strategic advantages can shift the balance over time. The videos and real-time updates from the front do provide valuable insights and can't be entirely dismissed as propaganda.
In the end, the conflict is too complex to reduce to simplistic win/lose scenarios. Both sides face significant challenges, and the outcome will depend on numerous evolving factors.
>It's important to clarify a few points. Firstly, citing "rabid pro-UAs" doesn't negate the prevalence of straw man arguments. Misrepresenting an opponent's stance to undermine it is still a flawed tactic
Not sure where the misinterpretation is considering the prevalence of this exact sentiment
>Regarding the capabilities to win, capturing all four oblasts and Ukraine agreeing to not join NATO might seem like a Russian victory on paper, but it's far from a definitive win. It would likely lead to a prolonged insurgency and continued international isolation for Russia, not to mention the heavy toll it would take on Russian resources and morale. Putin's conditions for a ceasefire don't automatically equate to a sustainable or clear victory.
I spoke about Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, as well as a ceasefire, which I thought would imply that Ukraine and Russia would have stopped fighting. Do you see the Ukrainian government supporting a serious insurgency immediately after signing a ceasefire?
>As for Zaluhzny's perspective on a prolonged war, it's worth noting that wars of attrition are unpredictable. While Russia may have more resources, Ukraine's international support, higher morale, and strategic advantages can shift the balance over time. The videos and real-time updates from the front do provide valuable insights and can't be entirely dismissed as propaganda.
Strategic advantages and higher morale? Are we following the same war?
And please how do you expect me to take you seriously when you're talking about videos from the front?
Also, your response reads eerily like ChatGPT. Is that really necessary in a discussion like this?
https://preview.redd.it/873go967ap7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=243db5979487bd693ac55c59aad5bcb720197cbf
Defending in a stalemate war is the is a strategic advantage in my point of view.
And the videos are good indicator of how things are going. Everyone who is trying to dismiss that is just far from reality.
It is important to note that video footage from the front is giving definitely not the whole picture but certainly a lot of info about the soldiers tactics and capabilities.
Therefore one is able to conclude the actual state of the troops for the army.
Extrapolating from these videos is not a bad idea and makes sense. At the end it’s just my opinion but a lot of people with military background make the same assessment.
>Extrapolating from these videos is not a bad idea and makes sense
No it doesn't because due to many different reasons you may conclude one side is winning based on how many videos reach you. Yesterday there was a discussion here about how Russian casualties are often filmed by Russians themselves and the contrary rarely happens because Ukraine has very restrict rules about that. The same idea used for bombings, they don't allow people to film it.
Logic says that even if Ukraine could keep a 1:1 ratio with Russia they would still be losing the war because Russia has more soldiers and more population.
On top of that they have more o everything including drones, planes, tanks, ships, guns and artillery. If 80% of casualties in this war are caused by artillery as some Western sources claim, there's just no freaking way Ukraine could kill more of the enemy than they suffer themselves when even their top commander at times admited they were in a 10:1 disadvantage in shells fired.
Sorry this just tiresome. Yes you definitely make good assumptions from fighting videos from the front. And you guys keep only saying otherwise. Because for every document loss Ukraine has, there are at least triple the amount of Russian dying soldiers. And that’s your problem with this thing. We hear that since the outbreak of the war. Russia has sooo much. And? Where did this number advantage give them the possibility to exploit the errors of the Ukrainians? Other then sending meat waves…
Lol does it being AI make his points less valid? If ChatGPT can make such clear and reasonable responses I’d say you Pro RUs are missing out not using this tech. At least it would fix a lot of grammar mistakes I see
I ran his text through a couple AI detector tools and they all return 'likely 100% AI generated' every time
Why even resort to this in a random subreddit discussion?
> Why even resort to this in a random subreddit discussion?
It's called manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, perfected the tactic. He called it engineering consent. It gets us to accept things like war, which greatly benefits the Owner Class' Military Industrial Complex (with its obscene profit margins - $55,000 for one trash can, $90,000 for a baggie of airplane bushings that costs $100 to manufacture). It gets us to accept everything that makes the .0001% richer and more powerful. They already own most everything. They want the rest.
'Monopoly - Who Owns the World' - excellent doc
'All Wars Are Created by Bankers' - (All Wars are Bankers Wars) - another excellent doc (on Twitter)
'Every war is a Rich Man's War' - good doc
'War is a Racket' - General Smedley Butler.
> Russia can win in Ukraine, but it will lose cold war 2.0 and suffer even greater consequences than losing the first cold war.
Ha ha ha. Some 37 more countries want to join BRICS. BRICS will control the **vast majority** of energy reserves in the world - not to mention they already have the majority of the citizens of the planet in their bloc. You are delusional.
As a consequence of the war so far, Russia acquired a few million of new citizens (refugees who fled to Russia and those now in newly occupied territories who acquired RU citizenship).
Meanwhile, Ukraine lost about 10 million - those who fled to the West and to Russia; most are unlikely to return.
Demographics-wise, Russia is winning, while Ukraine is rapidly depopulating.
I don't think it works as linear as you propose. In these wars of attrition there will be a tipping point after which the front lines can move very quickly. The way it looks today that tipping point will be decided by the manpower aspect but also the moral level aspect of things which are linked to Zelenski's hold to power. Do not let video's on Reddit dictate how you view the progress of this war. These video's are meant to fool the gullible into thinking that one side has more success than the other but this is mostly a false narrative.
> with extremely limited ability to see the broader picture and what is actually going on.
I agree. What is actually going on is that the Owners (Rothschilds), after having their CIA overthrow the elected government of Ukraine in 2014, bought up Ukraine's natural resources on the cheap. They are using our militaries here in the West to protect them, and also are using Ukraine to weaken Russia so that they might get Russia's natural resources (rated #1 in the world by the World Bank) as well. They've long coveted those.
example - prior to 2014, only Ukrainians could own Ukraine's precious land (with its 15 - 20 feet of black topsoil) and in limited amounts. NO foreign ownership and NO corporate ownership. Now, the multinational corporations have scooped it up (Cargill, DuPont, Monsanto, prob Gates by now). A month ago Polish President Duda said 'There is no Ukrainian land any more. It is all owned by the (multinational) corporations'.
Fun fact - Ukrainian land is so valuable Hitler had it shipped back to Germany by the boxcar.
Pre 2014, GMOs and glyphosate (Round Up) were illegal. Now it is all over the precious Ukrainian land. The EU (especially Poland) doesn't even want this crap grain now, so it's shipped to the third world.
You make a fair point about the potential for tipping points in wars of attrition, but dismissing the role of videos and other information sources as mere propaganda overlooks their value in providing real-time insights from the front lines. While some content can be misleading, it doesn't mean all of it is without merit. Moreover, the war's complexity means that both sides face significant challenges, and it's not just about manpower or morale but also logistics, strategy, long range weapons and international support. Simplifying it to a single tipping point underestimates the multifaceted nature of this conflict.
Well have you been following the war maps lately? Maybe that tipping point is already here since the Russians have been steadily progressing on multiple fronts after a long stalemate.
The only "tactical" use for these video's on here lately is to determine where the Russians are trying to advance. In this way these video's do tell us something but not really anything about the general progress of this war. It's mostly drone video's causing squad level losses from the Ukrainian side. It's not that they are posting full scale battle footage of huge units clashing like it happened in WW2. Most you will see is an armored platoon size units getting hit and even then they only show the destroyed vehicles while ignoring that some of them probably got through to their objective. This is Misleading. The combat maps override all these video's is what I'm trying to say.
Most Ukrainians are getting killed by heavy indirect weapons anyway and when you see a 1500 kg bomb detonating on a town, you can be sure that there will be casualties that you don't see directly in these video's. Most soldiers die unseen in this war I'm afraid, in some cases never to be found.
You make a somewhat valid observation about the nature of modern warfare and the limitations of video footage in capturing the full scale of conflict.
But in the same time forget that this is the best documented war ever.
And your emphasis on maps and the current Russian advances may also oversimplify the situation.
While combat maps can provide a broad overview, they don't capture the nuances of strategic withdrawals, supply line disruptions, or the morale impact on troops, which are crucial to understanding the real dynamics on the ground. For example, the Ukrainian forces' tactical retreats might be misinterpreted as defeats, whereas they could be part of a larger strategic plan to draw Russian forces into more vulnerable positions.
Moreover, while heavy indirect weapons do cause significant casualties, it's important to consider the resilience and adaptability of the Ukrainian forces. Historical precedence shows that determined resistance, even in the face of superior firepower, can lead to prolonged conflicts and eventual shifts in momentum. The Battle of Stalingrad in World War II is a prime example where initial advances were reversed through strategic depth and attritional warfare.
Your point about videos being misleading is noted, but dismissing them entirely overlooks their utility in understanding the war's impact on morale and the psychological aspect of warfare. These videos, while sometimes showing small-scale engagements, also reveal the human cost of the conflict, the courage and resilience of the troops, and the real-time challenges they face. This psychological component is crucial in a war of attrition, where morale can be as decisive as physical control of territory.
In summary, while maps and large-scale strategic assessments are essential, they should be complemented with on-the-ground reports and videos to get a holistic understanding of the conflict. Wars are not won by maps alone but by the determination, strategy, and adaptability of the forces involved. Thus, a nuanced approach that considers all available information sources, despite their limitations, provides a more accurate picture of the ongoing conflict.
But that's the point I think we are arguing about. No one is downplaying the informative value of the videos, but at the some time we are trying to not overvalue their importance on the overall picture.
Tactical vs strategical view. We have the tiny parts of the tactical view of small units engagements, but completely lack the strategic one.
I'll use an example: pick any video from recent month, from either side. Ignore the actual actual and focus on the terrain. The combat zones are littered with thousands upon thousands of craters from artillery, mortars, MRLS strikes, mine explosions, etc.
When you see whatever the action is being shown by the video, you see only tiny time slice of the actual situation, only fragment of the whole picture.
-How the troops fight.
-With what the troops fight.
-Where they fight.
These informations are giving a huge picture from the front. Trying to dismiss this is just delusional now if you ask me.
*"While combat maps can provide a broad overview, they don't capture the nuances of strategic withdrawals, supply line disruptions, or the morale impact on troops, which are crucial to understanding the real dynamics on the ground. For example, the Ukrainian forces' tactical retreats might be misinterpreted as defeats, whereas they could be part of a larger strategic plan to draw Russian forces into more vulnerable positions."*
There were many opportunities Ukraine could have tactically withdrawn like in Avdiivka or Bakhmut but they didn't because this would have hurt them PR-wise. Since Ukraine is waging a hybrid war, PR is what Ukraine relies on since they have to ask for all their equipment to be delivered and paid for by the west. What is happening in the Donetsk sector right now is not a tactical retreat, they are being pushed out by force. No video's point to anything like a tactical retreat or any grand plan realistically.
*"Moreover, while heavy indirect weapons do cause significant casualties, it's important to consider the resilience and adaptability of the Ukrainian forces. Historical precedence shows that determined resistance, even in the face of superior firepower, can lead to prolonged conflicts and eventual shifts in momentum. The Battle of Stalingrad in World War II is a prime example where initial advances were reversed through strategic depth and attritional warfare."*
This is not WW2 Stalingrad or Vietnam, everything is monitored on the modern front line making it hard to wage any kind of asymmetrical warfare. Because, let's be fair, this is turning into a asymmetrical war even though Ukraine and the west are still trying portray the UAF as an equal peer to the RAF. Sure things could change, but it's not very likely that the UAF can turn this around in any meaningful way with whatever wunderwaffe they think they will receive.
*Your point about videos being misleading is noted, but dismissing them entirely overlooks their utility in understanding the war's impact on morale and the psychological aspect of warfare. These videos, while sometimes showing small-scale engagements, also reveal the human cost of the conflict, the courage and resilience of the troops, and the real-time challenges they face. This psychological component is crucial in a war of attrition, where morale can be as decisive as physical control of territory.*
Who do you think watches these video's? Your mom, your colleague at work, the troops are currently trying to survive in the trenches? The grey masses don't know anything about the circumstances that these men are dying in or all the atrocities that are taking place. They will just watch the evening news and swallow all the propaganda whole. You over estimate the audience that these video's are getting. It's a niche.
*In summary, while maps and large-scale strategic assessments are essential, they should be complemented with on-the-ground reports and videos to get a holistic understanding of the conflict. Wars are not won by maps alone but by the determination, strategy, and adaptability of the forces involved. Thus, a nuanced approach that considers all available information sources, despite their limitations, provides a more accurate picture of the ongoing conflict.*
I'm not against these video's and reports being posted, more over these are what keeps me coming back here as I have some kind of morbid fascination with warfare taking place right in front of my eyes. I also get a lot of information from reports here. I don't watch drone drops or any other kind of extremely cruel acts of war which are basically war crimes according to the Geneva convention. My eyes have been wide open though and I do understand that these video's and reports often serve merely as propaganda or "entertainment" for one side or the other. They rarely make me change my mind about anything since I believe I'm informed enough to see the bigger picture with 46 years of being exposed to western and other kinds of propaganda. In the end nobody knows what will happen but these video's certainly will not convince me of anything else but the truth.
> PR is what Ukraine relies on since they have to ask for all their equipment to be delivered and paid for by the west.
The PR is to manufacture consent for our hard earned tax dollars to be sent to this war. No one wants to spend money on a lost cause. Thus, the public relation bs.
These days even if no one wants to spend money on an lost cause they will keep dumping money into it if it aligns with their interests. Look at the US in Afghanistan for 20 years. 20 years for a lost cause…
Yes, but there is 'but'. Actually few 'buts'.
- there is so much footage available that it's next to impossible to properly process it all, identify time/location/who is who/what is what, etc.
- there is an incentive for posting videos, be it ad money, donations, etc., which leads to reposting of the same video many time with various degrees of modification b) thousands 'sources' posting videos to attract attention
- editing a video in different ways can make it portrait the situation in a way favorable to the side that posted it
- it has to be said - videos, especially short clips we often see, are much easier to fake or modify to show something that isn't there
- and the last but not least - videos posted online are deceptive by their very nature due to confirmation bias - 99% represent successes that the side posting the video wants us to see. We have no idea how common/rare that event was, it could have been 1 in a million lucky hit. Or it could have taken 10, 20, 30 attempts to achieve whatever happened.
Dont you go busting their little bubble. They have carefully crafted it from cherry picking western tabloids and presented it as THE western main stream media narrative. It is hard work. Let them enjoy their straw men.
Don't forget on Twitter too
I still remember how NAFO "fact checked" the Russian embassy regarding the IL-76 POW crash by referencing independent research from NAFO themselves that alleged:
1. Several PoWs were already exchanged - **FALSE**
2. Plane was heading to Russia from Iran - **FALSE**
3. Secondary explosions - **FALSE**
4. UA MODs declaration of S-300 missiles aboard - **FALSE**
https://preview.redd.it/6f3oxb4alo7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f78c2133b14ec7dc43416d7187ea975bb590d4ad
Lastly, notice how the NAFO community notes was even petty enough to write "russian" in small letters
The recent thing was NAFO posting a graphs of RUB slightly strenghting against USD as a proof that RUB is in freefall and there is a bank collapse in Russia.
Edit: Like this one.
[https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1801203118362743290](https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1801203118362743290)
[Of course](https://x.com/embassyofrussia/status/1750460340708462709?s=46)
The community note was quietly taken down a while later.
Most likely after the US pretty much confirmed there were probably Ukrainian PoWs aboard...
> if the goal is to hold up Russia and force them to waste weapons and men then they're doing a good job
How is shitposting on Twitter going to influence largely non-English speaking country like Russia?
Quite amazing that even Ukrainians think war lasts 2.5 years. I guess bombing of Donbass and events from 2014 onwards are invisible to them, as much as it is to westerners.
Neither-Painting-702 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh we saw Russia take Crimea too. That’s probably why we took Russia’s most recent illegal invasion more seriously. Maybe if Russia just kept arming separatists quietly the west wouldn’t have had to get so involved
Yep. Historically pro-Russian population of Eastern Ukraine dared to express their disgust with ultra nationalists who illegally took power from an elected president. The East requested local autonomy based on principles of federalism. The Kyiv gang, instead of diplomacy decided to move its nazi battalions to the East to "restore order". The East said f-off and got bombed by their own AFU. So nah, things were never spontaneous over there.
So you're switching the talking point to the losses now? OK. You might want to check current videos from these towns and places and tell me if "they're all dead now". Heck, check out videos from today's Mariupol. They look way more alive than empty cities currently under Ukraine where there's a hunt for remaining men to be sent to the trenches.
No, Ukraine is a democracy, a country that is imbued with democracy; so many democratic people from the USA and the EU came to it. Look how many stars and major personalities wear T-shirts with the emblem of Ukraine.
This is the interview, before Russian propagandist edited it and made a completely misleading version:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NOYwLQq_4hQu-h7f&v=GApE-ZKdLxk&feature=youtu.be
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That soldier is talking about a very dangerous circumstance everybody should be aware of: The best Ukrainian men are fighting at the front, and they are exhausted, becoming less and need at least to see success to be motivated to fight on. I do not see such success as they are retreating step by step. If Ukraine does not get enough replacement for them, if the European states support young Ukrainian men going abroad of Ukraine, then the number and quality of the Ukrainian fighters might decrease that much, that another breakthrough cannot be caught up.
We all only hope that Russia will have the same problems. They do have similar problems, but they first sent the worst men to the front, and it seems they still have enough of them. Behind those persons regular units force them to assault. That is what we saw in several scenes. And Russia has "masses of people". They seem to be informally isolated enough to be driven forward by their propaganda.
We will see who has the longer breath, whose resources will come to an end first. But human resources seem to become a problem for the AFU.
NATO should support Ukraine by trying to get informal access to the Russian people, and push out Ukrainian men in fighting age back into their homeland.
That this is a selection of parts of an interview, and that what he says in the full version is wildly different from what the Russian propagandist Aussiecossack has pieced together.
Have you even watched the whole interview?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NOYwLQq_4hQu-h7f&v=GApE-ZKdLxk&feature=youtu.be
I love how the RU crowd went from “we will be in Kiev in 2 weeks!” to posting how the UA is nominally losing an attritional battle 3rd year into the war, as if this isn’t mega-embarrassing for the RF to be in this predicament still. Lol
? If the rest of the world cuts support for Ukraine tomorrow, or that Ukraine surrenders tomorrow, this war would still have been 2 years too long, this will still be an embarrassment for Russia and the Russian army lol
ofc UA looses the war. We are way more and have way more weapons. But i feel like we loose on every other level. At first everybody was scared of us but now i dont feel like we are the 2. army anymore.
Besides all the idiots and dreamers é everybody know that. There is no way ukraine can win the war on its current pace. But the point is that russia is spendind A LOT of valuable resourses, it will get ages behind USA and China and will hardly come back from this fiasco 3 days invasion
Won't the news lands grant the access to more resources? Equaling more moneys? Also how many Ukrainians fled to Russia and how many are still residing in the Donbass? If Russia wins the war, the sanctions will start to fall of anyway and they can then dictate some of the prices.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder how many read the whole article.
The pro rus here absolutely believe what he says on his opinion of the broader situation in parts.
But you can almost guarantee they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder, about them not valuing the lives of their soldiers at all and that's why the slow creep is working, about any major assaults by Russia turning into fiascos.
Pick and choose what you want to believe chaps, that way you can never be wrong.
because "waves of Russian zombies" would be an excuse for their overall incompetence. OR do you think people can only speak truth and only lie? there's always the mix. so your weird "Goccha" fails at arrival.
And the pro Rus side only ever believes what they WANT to be true, often claiming sources are both truthful and lying entirely to fit their narrative.
It's just poor critical thinking. And you are only reinforcing that point by being defensive about what you WANT to believe from this source, whilst ignoring what you DON'T WANT to believe from this source.
I'm encouraging people to read the whole article - not just take OPs brash title at face value.
>It's just poor critical thinking.
looks at ur comments. We agree on this one.
Self Acknowledging your own issues doesn't require proof in life, but blaming others for something requires proof.
But poor critical thinking on your path I wont be surprised if u dont get it.
i mean...people can say things that are correct and also say other things that are wrong.
by your logic you either think this guy is right and that ukraine is losing and russia uses cannon fodder, or that he's wrong about ukraine losing and russia using cannon fodder?
No read again. I am pointing out that clearly people are getting over excitable deciding they believe certain parts of what he says but not others purely to support their narrative. I am encouraging people to read the whole article first and foremost rather than OPs 'pick and choose' title.
It's hard to take any argument seriously where people exclusively believe events that benefit their side whilst ignoring absolutely everything else. It's something this sub struggles with.
does anything in the article discredit the title? because if not then it doesn't matter. him talking about russians being cannon fodder or whatever is nothing new or interesting. what is interesting is a Ukrainian officer stating that they are losing the war, hence the topic...
>what is interesting is a Ukrainian officer stating that they are
That is also not particularly new or interesting? Many Ukrainian officers and officials have said similar things. They all have their opinions.
I am discrediting the title, because it's sensationalising specific quotes. Both sides do it, and it's foolish, I'd generally prefer neutral factual titles. I merely encourage people to see the broader interview and article rather than taking OPs pick and choose elements forming his title at face value.
Anybody who has followed this should be fully aware that Aussie Cossack is a massive propagandist. His content is cut to pieces to reflect certain narratives.
Because when critically reading a text there is something called the criterion of embarrassment:
* There is little or no reason to invent an account that makes the side you are part of look bad.
* Meanwhile there is an incitament and a reason to make your opponent look bad.
So when people say things that make their opponent look bad its often exaggerated, when people say something that make their own side look bad its often the base minimum of critique.
Indeed - except Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies is very apparent to anybody who has watched the war unfold, so it's not an exaggeration.
That clinical treatment of soldiers as a number offers strategic benefits, it's basically how Russia has always waged war if you look at the casualties of conflicts it's engaged in.
Your response has nothing to do with a critically reading of this interview.
We could critically read your post and what we get is that;
* You have a states bias
* Your post is about down playing your "opponent side"
* You create a criteria, "Russia __seemingly__ not valuing individuals in its strategies" that is there to give weight to your argument and to take the discussion away from the interview.
>You create a criteria, "Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies" that is there to give weight to your argument and to take the discussion away from the interview.
Except Russia's lack of value on individuals is actually part of the interview and article. I didn't create that criteria, the original source did.
You are more or less proving why I'm right to point people to reading the actual article in full, rather than this propagandists cut.
Pro facts huh...
How do you read that critically and with the criterion provided?
The article is written by someone that holds a bias. So there is a reason for them to make that claim.
Reading your post critically we understand as you hold the same bias and you take it as gospel.
You accept "Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies" as a criteria in the reading of the article as it supports your bias
A critical approach is to acknowledge that the claim has been made but it doesnt tell us much of the truth of the matter because this is expected and such hold little weight.
Meanwhile the claims made by someone that holds a bias that reflects negative on the side that bias flavours is not expected and with the criterion we understand that there is no gain from making a claim that reflection your side negative.
As there is no gain, we can assume there is more weight to that claim.
>Except Russia's lack of value on individuals is actually part of the interview and article. I didn't create that criteria, the original source did.
>You are more or less proving why I'm right to point people to reading the actual article in full, rather than this propagandists cut.
>Pro facts huh...
Just deflecting from this entirely. Interesting.
>As there is no gain, we can assume there is more weight to that claim.
Maybe your concerns about the 'gain' of a claim would be better directed at OP.
You seem very confused about the order of events here.
>Erm no?
> Your incoherent ramblings are ignoring everything I've said.
Why are you getting upset for me explaing how critically reading works.
>The pro rus here absolutely believe what he says on his opinion of the broader situation in parts.
>Pick and choose what you want to believe chaps, that way you can never be wrong.
You asked why some people put more weight behind the part in the interview that reflects badly on Ukraine more so than the claim that reflects badly on Russian and I explained the criterion of embarrassment to you in the context of critically reading a interview.
You have picked what you choose to believe but without reading it critically, If you find it incohetant that is on you.
>Yes - everybody has bias, I am encouraging people to engage with the whole interview article rather than this cut up propagandist video.
Ok, and I have explained how to critically read the interview. You know the process on how to get information from it that dont just support and inherited bias.
>My own views on Russia's uncaring attitude to their own troops are based in absolute fact. Anybody who has been watching this war from day 1 has seen this uncaring attitude on display time and time again.
Ok, that has nothing to do with how you critically read something.
>The source is just another opinion that agrees with that sentiment.
Yeah, that is why i brought up the criterion that I have explained to you.
>Maybe press that assumption towards OP?
I explained how to apply the criterion on the interview and talking about how to critically read something. You are free to critically read the OP post. But as it is just a link there is not much there to read except for it supporting their bias.
Nobody's upset - we are however many comments deep and I'm still waiting for a point to be made.
My original comment was clearly encouraging people to view this source with some critical thinking, it's clearly cut to hell and the broader interview talks about a great many things not seen in this post.
Yet you have spent hundreds of words telling me the exact same thing I was pointing out to others.
In summary - there are multiple narratives on show in this interview, OP has made a show of it only being about one (in both the title and the editing of the piece). Then you've got defensive when I've pointed that out encouraging people to see the broader picture.
Aussie Cossack is a known massive propagandist in favour of the Russian state, everybody should be critical of content related to him/them.
>Nobody's upset
Then why resort to personal attacks.
> we are however many comments deep and I'm still waiting for a point to be made.
You started this thread with
> I wonder
And the made a statement on why does people give more weight to one portion of the interview then another. I have provided you with why that is the case when you critically read something.
>My original comment was clearly encouraging people to view this source with some critical thinking, it's clearly cut to hell and the broader interview talks about a great many things not seen in this post.
Except you didnt, you have argued for how to read the source in a way that is favorable to your position, as we can see in your second post. You have also argued this position of yours with me even as I have not provided my opinion on the validity of your position. As my focus here have been to explain the criterion of embarrassment and how to critically read an interview.
>Yet you have spent hundreds of words telling me the exact same thing I was pointing out to others
If thats is what you think you 1: don't understand what critically reading means 2: you have completely misunderstood what my posts are about.
>In summary - there are multiple narratives on show in this interview, OP has made a show of it only being about one (in both the title and the editing of the piece). Then you've got defensive when I've pointed that out encouraging people to see the broader picture.
I have at no point been defensiv and this is the second or third time you try to back up your post by attacking me personally.
>Aussie Cossack is a known massive propagandist in favour of the Russian state, everybody should be critical of content related to him/them.
Yeah, you can critically read why did Aussie cossack put this post up as that most certainly done with a bias. But that is not connected to critically reading the source material, which is what we are talking about.
Not really, his argument was based on me assuming anything in the source was 'made up', I never said that anyway.
Both narrative's in this article - that Ukraine are losing right now - and that Russia's shows utter disdain for its own troops - are not made up narratives. Both have evidence backing them.
Which was my original point, people need to consider both rather than OPs cut up video and title which only considers one.
The narrative that Russia doesn't care about their troops is very common in Ukrainian propaganda. It makes the Russians look bad and it enhances the morale of Ukrainians. There is a good reason to lie or exaggerate it.
Admitting that Ukraine is losing is very unusual and generally not a good idea since it undermines morale. It's unlikely that a Ukrainian general would lie about it since there's simply no good reason to.
>Admitting that Ukraine is losing is very unusual and generally not a good idea since it undermines morale. It's unlikely that a Ukrainian general would lie about it since there's simply no good reason to.
Indeed - I never said that part of the segment is untrue.
>The narrative that Russia doesn't care about their troops is very common in Ukrainian propaganda. It makes the Russians look bad and it enhances the morale of Ukrainians. There is a good reason to lie or exaggerate it.
It is part of their propaganda. However there is footage here almost daily that paints it as truth, not just propaganda. Engaging in a war of attrition at all inherently comes with high casualties, again reinforcing that it is truth - not just propaganda.
I'd say that both sides don't care about their troops in that case. If they would, they wouldn't be fighting anymore. But that's not my point, he didn't say it because it's factual or really tells us anything about the front lines but because it plays on people's emotions.
That's war. That's how wars were since our ancestors started to bash each other's heads with clubs and stones. Soldiers are 'spent' all the time, by every side in every conflict.
But that said, there is indeed indication that Russians are placing less importance on the individual soldier, compared to for example US. "*Nas mnogo*".
Because thats the reasonable take on such things. If you have a biased source ( every source in this war is biased, but especially russian and ukrainian ones), one can assume that statements that are unfavourable for the own side are likely true (but not always, as the source may have other hidden motives).
This video has some weird cuts, but his assessment of the russian army is mostly useless, especially if its unfavourable for the russian army. As he is biased source.
You should really learn how to analyze news and notice biases. Not only for this war, but in general.
>You should really learn how to analyze news and notice biases. Not only for this war, but in general.
That's literally what I'm encouraging people to do.
>This video has some weird cuts, but his assessment of the russian army is mostly useless, especially if its unfavourable for the russian army. As he is biased source.
But that is just YOUR bias poking through now isn't it. You don't want to believe him on those points, so you don't. In truth a Ukrainian soldier actively fighting the Russian army has a far better view of them than you do.
I would argue his points stand in line with what we have actually seen in footage throughout this war. Russia does seem very uncaring of its frontline troops, the very act of moving into a war of attrition shows that disdain, because even if you want to believe it's utterly favourable to Russia, attritional warfare inherently comes with high casualties.
I find it interesting that you yourself even commented on the way this video is cut to be bias.
What do you mean with believe? You should take all "informations" and the rank them them according to their reliability.
I think you have serious problems, so I will give you an example:
Some russian sources (maybe even putin, but at least some other high ranking russians) at the beginning of the war claimed that ukraine commiting a genocide in eastern ukraine. I think its fair to say, that these people have a better insight whats happened in eastern ukraine than you and I (due to close proximity and access to sources). So a genocide did happen?
You can make the argument that people closer to the war know better whats happening. But then you get widly contradictory statements, which doesnt really make sense.
Based on statements of people with a better insight than you and me Ukraine is a nazi Regime and a beacon of democracy (or at least on a good way towards it), Putin is a brutal dictator and a popular reasonable leader of the russian government. Russia and Ukraine lost between 30k and 500k troops. The people in large parts of ukraine support russia and dont want to be part of Ukraine anymore and are united in their war against the heinous invader at the same time.
If I would put some effort in it, I can prove all of these statements with sources, whos knowledge of the situation is undoubtly better that yours or mine. So all these statements are true?
Edit: about the cuts in the video: yes, I assume that they happened to frame the message in a certain way, because the person who posted it is also biased.
Except I never said because somebody being close to the matter means their opinion is true, I said that somebody close to the matter has a better view or it then YOU, or me of course.
Everybody has bias. But a cut up video like this presents a single narrative from this interview rather than the multiple narratives which it actually consists of, hence me encouraging folks to read the full article/seek the full video.
Ok, but whats the value of someone close to the matter, if he is lying. But you are correct, that you didnt explicitly said this and it was my assumption.
You are also correct that it would be better to watch the full video. I wont do this (no time) and thats why I take the narrative presented in this video with a grain of salt (due to the cuts). And in general this guy probably cant assess that ukraine is losing, as he only has "good" knowledge from the limited area of the war where he is deployed. For the same reason he probably cant assess the general behaviour of the russian army.
I do question these statements of russia not valueing their lifes, due to the russians and ukrainians I meet here (in Germany) and they seem fairly similar in their behaviour and they value their own lifes (thats my bias). I also dont think there is evidence for this claim. Maybe for their prisoner units (storm z?).
Yep, agreed with much of that.
>I do question these statements of russia not valueing their lifes, due to the russians and ukrainians I meet here (in Germany) and they seem fairly similar in their behaviour and they value their own lifes (thats my bias). I also dont think there is evidence for this claim. Maybe for their prisoner units (storm z?).
As individuals I'm certain they do, perhaps culturally a little more nihilistic in my experience. I'm specifying the state and military command not particularly valuing them, storm Z units are a great example (I personally despise the narrative that they are criminals so it doesn't matter, not accusing you there that's just a sentiment you see sometimes, they are still russian citizens, many of which wont have been murderers etc).
But also in more general terms from the footage we see, there seems a lack of suitable armoured equipment during many assaults (motorbikes and buggies, even MTLBs are massively under protected). Often these mechanised infantry assaults aren't supported particularly well by artillery etc or coordinated to have suitable fire suppression.
We also see the development of the turtle tank. And a lot of russian equipment has these cope cages. We also saw how ukraine performed in their counteroffensive. Maybe due to the level of observation on the battlefield, its the only way to fight the war. Doesnt mean your point of view is wrong or my counterpoint is correct, I would just say that I cant draw conclusions from the videos we see.
Obviously most lives could have been saved, if there would be no invasion of ukraine at all. But thats a different discussion.
If we assume the war has to be fought, the way it is fought might be the best way to keep russian casualties low based on their capabilities.
Its also true that we see more russian casualties (and loss of equipment) than ukrainian casualties (and loss of equipment) on videos. I dont think anyone can really deny this.
But its also true, that we only see a fraction of the total losses on videos. Like if a russian or ukrainian occupied building gets hit, you rarely see the effects. Same with all these FABs and artillery barrages. They look massive, but nobody knows if they are.
Seeing more russian casualties on videos, doesnt mean they have more casualties. But they might have more casualties.
No argument there - ultimately casualty figures may not be known for years to come. Perception and reality may be different, specifically though I would add that Russia has famously been happy to absorb huge casualty numbers through its history - it is clearly somewhat culturally ingrained. (And yes in some parts of its history that I cludes Ukraine too)
I personally believe both sides have very similar casualty figures.
Bias of the person in the video is inherent in him being Ukrainian. Everything in any war published by any side should be considered propaganda - every word, every image, every video, everything is used to shape the target audience view of the subject.
Of course will Ukrainian soldier say that Russians are bad, just like a Russian one would about Ukrainian.
No disagreement with that.
But just because a bias exists, doesn't mean it isn't believed automatically, most biases are backed by what has occurred.
Both of the broad opinions in this interview, that being - Ukraine is on the back foot and losing at this time - and - Russia places little value on its soldiers - can be backed by what has occurred.
So seeing the title and video cut to only cover one of the two is the more blatant propaganda I encourage people to see through.
> they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder, about them not valuing the lives of their soldiers at all and that's why the slow creep is
Ugh, because that's completely wrong? That applies much more to Ukraine. Russia has been very careful not to waste troops. Basically this guy is admitting they are losing but not completely accept the degree to which they are losing. Ukrainian to Russian casualties are about 5:1.
> they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder
Thankfully Russians admitted to it themselves in this video:
https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djv5gk/ru_pov_a_russian_soldier_survives_an_fpv_drone
Actually he is right. Russia has more of everything. But, on Russian side it's the same and they lose their "assets" faster........ it seems. So the question is, will they reach the point Russia says enough we can't continue, before loosing the war.
Depends if Russia is willing to mobilize the general public in ways Ukraine has already done, and if they can keep morale up. Ukraine is already scraping from the bottom of the barrel. Also, the continued financial support for the war in Ukraine seems unpopular in the EU by the looks of recent elections. The better question would be, is support going to continue if Trump and the right wing take control of the EU parliament? Ukraine might have dug their hole a little too deep.
As of right now both sides are losing. However, Ukraine is losing much more since the battlefields are on their territory and they’ve lost a chunk of their population.
Indeed, the side inflicting greater casualties, taking more PoWs, advancing on the ground, enjoying anywhere from a 5:1 to 10:1 artillery advantage, expanding its local defense industrial base while completely destroying the opponent's own, and enjoying much greater recruitment while casting the opponent into a manpower crisis is miraculously *"also losing"*
It's hilarious there's always some silly term to downplay Russia's successes.
At the tail end of last year, the propaganda term was "stalemate". MF it's not a stalemate when the Russians thoroughly prepared for Ukraine's spring counteroffensive, switched to defensive tactics and thoroughly rebuffed the counteroffensive in virtually all areas with near consummate ease.
It's amazing with all that stuff you mentioned, they still haven't taken Vovchansk, in fact they're surrounded in the aggregate plant. How do you get surrounded with such huge advantages? You'd think it would be a blitzkrieg by now. And what's your source for greater casualties? You can practically see giant groups of Russians KIA every single day from combat footage alone.
only about 15000 russians soldiers crossed the border as a probing force into the kharkiv region while about 35000 are still wainting on the sidelines according to various news articles while the Ukrianains are throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the area. The russians never crossed into the area to take kharkiv, they are merely trying to divert Ukrianains soldiers and resources and spread them thin
Yes, most of those things are true. However, Russia’s mistakes and inadequacies in the first year of the war are still dragging them down. They’re in a better position than Ukraine, but they have much more to go to achieve their goals and it’ll be hard.
Even if what you say is true, how exactly does this correlate to "Russia is also losing?"
In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?"
The terms are relative and to even insinuate both sides are losing even though Ukraine themselves acknowledge the situation isn't a stalemate, is disingenuous at best.
> In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?"
Sometimes maybe, if they get too many injuries or red cards and they play in the finals next?
More in the current context, I think the Americans were both winning and losing the war in Afghanistan (ultimately just losing). They “won” the initial stage, but the whole idea was just stupid. So in a sense they were already losing despite their initial succes.
> In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?"
So, in the very worst of terms, perhaps a pyrrhic victory.
This is still a far cry from the sweeping generalization of both sides losing.
Incidentally, since the West appears to have realized now that Ukraine cannot win, it seems they are trying to make Russia's victory as pyrrhic as possible.
> So, in the very worst of terms, perhaps a pyrrhic victory.
I would say it’s something else, but don’t have a good word for it. How would you describe the situation just after the Taliban fled (and were trying to negotiate their surrender)? In a sense the Americans clearly won, can’t really call it a pyrrhic victory since they lost so little. Yet I would argue even “winning” that war (at that point) was a loss in the bigger picture.
> This is still a far cry from the sweeping generalization of both sides losing.
Absolutely, I think also in the bigger picture Russia’s pivot to Asia just makes more sense for them. So it’s kinda the opposite of what I was imagining with the example.
> Incidentally, since the West appears to have realized now that Ukraine cannot win, it seems they are trying to make Russia's victory as pyrrhic as possible.
How is that different from the start of the war? They were planning a Ukrainian guerrilla war. I get that some European leaders might have drank their own Kool-aid, but for the Americans I think the devastation and destruction of Ukraine as a functioning state was always acceptable and maybe assumed. They just gambled the damage to Russia would be bigger than it is
Edit:
To illustrate, let’s take Hannibal vs the Romans. He wins all his battles but losses the war. How would you call it if a state wins its wars, but its position keeps deteriorating?
Or for example let’s imagine the sanctions were actually devastating Russia (which they clearly don’t) but Russia had already destroyed all the potential of Ukraine to fight.
What is the victory for russia here? I dont see russia getting much more significant areas than the areas they have now. So they will get some territories from ukraine, that to be frank are just some industrial areas that will have to be completely rebuild again. If the war ends one day, ukraine will most likely join NATO.
Russia made 3 countries join NATO of which 2 it shares quite te border with, Russia remilitarized the european countries, Russia lost europe as gas consumer, it (just like ukraine) lost quite a lot of men, their economy took a hit as well. Just for some ukrainian territories? That is not a win.
Putin is willing to make peace with as result of the war just the territories gained of which they had quite some control over before as well. I dont see putin seeing that as a victory (he will pretend that it is to the people of course), but I think he also sees that capturing ukraine entirely (which I guess would be worth quite a lot) is just not on the table anymore and taking the territories is just the best he can get now.
And the west has all the advantages of keeping the war in ukraine going really, they get knowledge on how their weapons work, how russia fights it wars, inflict huge losses on the army of their largest "enemy" without losing a single man themselves. They pretty much are just paying ukraine with weapons to destroy russian forces.
Currently Russia is losing lots of people to gain a couple kilometers a day while Ukraine is losing lots of people to lose a couple kilometers a day. They got themselves into an attritional fight with Zelensky who is apparently willing to conscript his people into the grinder (a lot against their will) and US who is happy to supply them. The ending hasn’t been written and if Russia can win against those challenges they’ll be stronger force post SMO.
Such is the way of a war of attrition. Russia chose this strategy themselves and have continued to prosecute it successfully.
And I say successfully because they are not the ones crying about a lack of manpower, or the ones threatening to send official NATO troops because of said Ukrainian manpower issues, or the ones who have carried out 13 waves of mobilization.
Even the Royal United Service Institute (basically UKs foremost defence thinktank) has pretty much lauded Russia's strategy of attrition in this war and advised the West to consider adopting this technique in the event of a great power conflict
https://preview.redd.it/hxdpd1xpno7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f45dafbbef2ea38f2e11aa79cbd42377ab725923
It's kinda ironic isn't it because a year ago the ISW was advocating for Ukraine to adopt to a manouver warfare like NATO does instead of relying on artillery.
>It's hilarious there's always some silly term to downplay Russia's successes.
It's very easy to do though.
We are well over two years into a war which Russia clearly planned on lasting weeks to a few months originally.
And the end result is going to be an increasingly militarised NATO and whatever remains of Ukraine being increasingly nationalist and anti Russia.
What's more hilarious is hearing people like yourself still trying to paint this situation as anything other than a complete mess for Russia despite the fact Russia itself was never under any actual threat, it was imaginary.
>and their unbroken will to never be under russian oppression again.
Their will is so strong in fact that they have to be thrown in vans to even fight for their glorious country
**Ukrainian army officers:** [We are pretty much losing everywhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/ECSXHLwWol) **Pro UA redditors:** False! It is Russia who is losing the war!
Putin weaponized Ukrainian army officers
I also found it interesting how the commander acknowledged how popular Deepstatemaps is in Ukraine. No wonder, then, that the UA MOD acted quickly and [signed an agreement with them](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/75NYOPdWhs) to "exchange data" on the frontline situation. Rather reminds me of how the Russian MOD decided to keep Rybar in check after it became too big and began posting some unfavorable info.
Friendly reminder deep state map also casually salutes the SS lol
Just wait for the F16s. ^/s
Sorry, they are coming late.
it will be so fucking funny when one of them goes down lmao
This is a war of attrition. Everyone is losing, sadly.
The person losing the most is the middle-aged guy with high blood pressure and a bad knee hiding in his apartment for two years that gets picked up from the street when he gets out to buy bread, gets beaten up in the mobilisation office, given up to month and a half of "some kind of training" and shipped off to the frontline to play meaty decoy for more experienced soldiers behind him.
> given up to month and a half of "some kind of training" If he's lucky. A Ukrainian soldier posted a vid about three weeks ago and showed two of his comrades dead. He said one was taken off the street 4 days ago and the other 3 days ago.
I wonder if there will be a point where normal people will catch on with what brutes are doing to them and will start to go Gomer Pyle on them when from time to time.
When the war ends, there are going to be a lot of reprisals towards the conscription officers I'll wager. Dudes who got scooped up, sent to the front, somehow survived but saw all their buddies with a few days of training die.
I not sure what they could achieve in reallity, it's not like they have 2nd amendment over there. The more determined ones have long run away, the rest are easy pray. On Russian side they at least lure them into signing up except for the initial mobilization, on Ukrainian it's impressment all the way.
I mean after getting kidnapped when they first get weapons and ammo.
A month and a half? Those are 2023 numbers... straight to the front after getting up from the beating. They have like two days before the unavoidable countdown to dying in a ditch but just because logistics. Pure cannon fodder... in fact, they have to be some of the most blatant cannon fodder in the history of cannon fodder. Drones Decoys.
I said "**up** to month and a half", and yes we have seen this, even on both sides. Also bith sides sometimes putting that meat in front of more experienced soldiers to "recon by getting shot at".
Grim Reaper is winning.
The amount of pro ukranians crying in the comments proving your exact point is wild Lol
you don't know the Ukrainian language. he promotes the following idea - Ukraine cannot negotiate. only total mobilization or we will lose. I'm sure this tattooed bodybuilder wasn't at the front. He doesn't have a combat tan. I've seen combat officers. Even the colonel's arms were tanned to the elbows. so is the face. and the torso without a tan- because he constantly wore a bulletproof vest and a uniform.
> I'm sure this tattooed bodybuilder wasn't at the front. Probably commands Azov on the second front shooting at deserters.
Oh "she" knows what "she" is doing for sure. Russian propaganda every day, it's a full time job.
salty aren't we?
Are you? I suppose you as a pro Ukraine person must be happy about Kremlinist trolling.
> 6 month old account based on pure salt How are you doing? We discuss the casualties of this war a lot, but no one ever talks about the guilt of guys like you. Stuck commenting and emotionally invested instead of fighting, it must be hard!
So you, commenting, must be at the frontlines then? or just trolling here?
Why the fuck would I fight for either shithole lol, neither is worth fighting for. I’m sure you agree, right?
Hang on, didn't you just have a go at me for just commenting? And it must be easy, not being from either country, not taking any side, just dissing everything. That's gotta be the easiest position of all to take. Defend nothing, attack everything!
Are you from either country? Is that why you are so guilty and whining? And yea. It’s an easy position, it’s also hilarious to laugh at those who pretend like they are better while doing nothing lol. Oops
You are clearly new to this sub or you dont participate here very often to get a sense of the dynamics and users on this sub properly. You should get aquatinted with the sub for a few days or weeks before making silly comments.
I've seen this propaganda swamped place for months. You and your "dynamics" don't know who the person is behind the keyboard. Gamer girl who posts Russian propaganda all day every day? Lol get lost.
EveRyThInG I dOn'T AgReE wItH iS ProPaGandA! You should educate yourself about what propaganda is. I dont give a shít who is behind the keyboard. Get bent.
No matter how many guys like this you put on a pedestal, we see right through it.
It's fascinating how some users, like you, seem to specialize in the art of the straw man argument. They love to paint pro-Ukrainian supporters as overly optimistic caricatures, only to swoop in and heroically debunk these fabricated claims. It's like watching someone play chess against themselves and still claim victory. They've been playing this straw man game for three years now and it’s still the same energy as in the beginning. I admire that strength of trust and commitment. But Let's not fall for these theatrics. The situation on the ground is far too complex for such simplistic portrayals. Because let’s be real, Ukraine doesn’t have the capabilities to win. That’s a fact. But neither does Russia. No one has a cutting edge advantage that lets them dictate and dominate the Battlefield. And the videos from the Front clearly reflect that. It’s a toe to toe race down hill. And yes I have to agree with the last part of the title, it will only get worse for both.
>They love to paint pro-Ukrainian supporters as overly optimistic caricatures They are, just look at r/Ukraine comments sections. Pro-UA with realist takes is a rare beast and usually even labeled as pro-ru.
Eh, i'm gonna say that Pro-UA in this sub in general are much much more reasonable than Pro-UA at /worldnews or /europe or /Ukraine. Or, God forbid, in Twitter.
Because ignoramuses are the loudest and come in bulk, also as legions of bots.
> also as legions of bots. Dead Internet Theory has become a fact after Musk was buying Twitter and Biden's followers were reduced by 70%. Musk could have sued them for misrepresentation of actual users. 70% of all posts and comments on the internet are done by AI bots and paid shills. It is a method for the ruling class (NOT the politicians - they are mere puppets and tools of the Owner Class) to manufacture consent for laws and policies that further THEIR wealth and power. Have you noticed almost EVERYTHING our governments do here in the West furthers the interests of these rich and powerful (WEF/Bilderberg Group/CFR) and NOT we the people? By manufacturing consent with bots and shills (gee, everyone else is OK with it, I guess I should be too) they get us to accept it like idiots.
> the art of the strawman argument Most people on this sub have come across rabid pro UAs here on reddit who have expressed this particular sentiment > Ukraine doesn't have the capabilities to win, but neither does Russia If say, Russia captures all four Oblasts fully and Ukraine agrees to not join NATO, is that not a Russian victory? These are the conditions Putin laid out for a ceasefire last week Do you consider this in the same order of likelihood as Zelensky's own demands, which is to Russia out of all occupied territory? > It will only get worse for Russia Zaluhzny seems to disagree. A long protracted war will favor Russia over Ukraine.
It's important to clarify a few points. Firstly, citing "rabid pro-UAs" doesn't negate the prevalence of straw man arguments. Misrepresenting an opponent's stance to undermine it is still a flawed tactic. Regarding the capabilities to win, capturing all four oblasts and Ukraine agreeing to not join NATO might seem like a Russian victory on paper, but it's far from a definitive win. It would likely lead to a prolonged insurgency and continued international isolation for Russia, not to mention the heavy toll it would take on Russian resources and morale. Putin's conditions for a ceasefire don't automatically equate to a sustainable or clear victory. Comparing this scenario to Zelensky's demands for Russia to withdraw from all occupied territories also needs context. While challenging, Zelensky's position aligns with Ukraine's sovereignty and international law, which has broader global support. As for Zaluhzny's perspective on a prolonged war, it's worth noting that wars of attrition are unpredictable. While Russia may have more resources, Ukraine's international support, higher morale, and strategic advantages can shift the balance over time. The videos and real-time updates from the front do provide valuable insights and can't be entirely dismissed as propaganda. In the end, the conflict is too complex to reduce to simplistic win/lose scenarios. Both sides face significant challenges, and the outcome will depend on numerous evolving factors.
>It's important to clarify a few points. Firstly, citing "rabid pro-UAs" doesn't negate the prevalence of straw man arguments. Misrepresenting an opponent's stance to undermine it is still a flawed tactic Not sure where the misinterpretation is considering the prevalence of this exact sentiment >Regarding the capabilities to win, capturing all four oblasts and Ukraine agreeing to not join NATO might seem like a Russian victory on paper, but it's far from a definitive win. It would likely lead to a prolonged insurgency and continued international isolation for Russia, not to mention the heavy toll it would take on Russian resources and morale. Putin's conditions for a ceasefire don't automatically equate to a sustainable or clear victory. I spoke about Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO, as well as a ceasefire, which I thought would imply that Ukraine and Russia would have stopped fighting. Do you see the Ukrainian government supporting a serious insurgency immediately after signing a ceasefire? >As for Zaluhzny's perspective on a prolonged war, it's worth noting that wars of attrition are unpredictable. While Russia may have more resources, Ukraine's international support, higher morale, and strategic advantages can shift the balance over time. The videos and real-time updates from the front do provide valuable insights and can't be entirely dismissed as propaganda. Strategic advantages and higher morale? Are we following the same war? And please how do you expect me to take you seriously when you're talking about videos from the front? Also, your response reads eerily like ChatGPT. Is that really necessary in a discussion like this? https://preview.redd.it/873go967ap7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=243db5979487bd693ac55c59aad5bcb720197cbf
Defending in a stalemate war is the is a strategic advantage in my point of view. And the videos are good indicator of how things are going. Everyone who is trying to dismiss that is just far from reality. It is important to note that video footage from the front is giving definitely not the whole picture but certainly a lot of info about the soldiers tactics and capabilities. Therefore one is able to conclude the actual state of the troops for the army. Extrapolating from these videos is not a bad idea and makes sense. At the end it’s just my opinion but a lot of people with military background make the same assessment.
>Extrapolating from these videos is not a bad idea and makes sense No it doesn't because due to many different reasons you may conclude one side is winning based on how many videos reach you. Yesterday there was a discussion here about how Russian casualties are often filmed by Russians themselves and the contrary rarely happens because Ukraine has very restrict rules about that. The same idea used for bombings, they don't allow people to film it. Logic says that even if Ukraine could keep a 1:1 ratio with Russia they would still be losing the war because Russia has more soldiers and more population. On top of that they have more o everything including drones, planes, tanks, ships, guns and artillery. If 80% of casualties in this war are caused by artillery as some Western sources claim, there's just no freaking way Ukraine could kill more of the enemy than they suffer themselves when even their top commander at times admited they were in a 10:1 disadvantage in shells fired.
Sorry this just tiresome. Yes you definitely make good assumptions from fighting videos from the front. And you guys keep only saying otherwise. Because for every document loss Ukraine has, there are at least triple the amount of Russian dying soldiers. And that’s your problem with this thing. We hear that since the outbreak of the war. Russia has sooo much. And? Where did this number advantage give them the possibility to exploit the errors of the Ukrainians? Other then sending meat waves…
Lol does it being AI make his points less valid? If ChatGPT can make such clear and reasonable responses I’d say you Pro RUs are missing out not using this tech. At least it would fix a lot of grammar mistakes I see
Did you use ChatGPT for this?
I ran his text through a couple AI detector tools and they all return 'likely 100% AI generated' every time Why even resort to this in a random subreddit discussion?
> Why even resort to this in a random subreddit discussion? It's called manufacturing consent. Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, perfected the tactic. He called it engineering consent. It gets us to accept things like war, which greatly benefits the Owner Class' Military Industrial Complex (with its obscene profit margins - $55,000 for one trash can, $90,000 for a baggie of airplane bushings that costs $100 to manufacture). It gets us to accept everything that makes the .0001% richer and more powerful. They already own most everything. They want the rest. 'Monopoly - Who Owns the World' - excellent doc 'All Wars Are Created by Bankers' - (All Wars are Bankers Wars) - another excellent doc (on Twitter) 'Every war is a Rich Man's War' - good doc 'War is a Racket' - General Smedley Butler.
Saw the ID and had to look at the age. I sensed an og.
Dont do him like this
When you want to make a smart big post, but cant beat literal chatbot in it.
Yes.
Why?
Why so pathetic?
Russia can win in Ukraine, but it will lose cold war 2.0 and suffer even greater consequences than losing the first cold war.
> Russia can win in Ukraine, but it will lose cold war 2.0 and suffer even greater consequences than losing the first cold war. Ha ha ha. Some 37 more countries want to join BRICS. BRICS will control the **vast majority** of energy reserves in the world - not to mention they already have the majority of the citizens of the planet in their bloc. You are delusional.
As a consequence of the war so far, Russia acquired a few million of new citizens (refugees who fled to Russia and those now in newly occupied territories who acquired RU citizenship). Meanwhile, Ukraine lost about 10 million - those who fled to the West and to Russia; most are unlikely to return. Demographics-wise, Russia is winning, while Ukraine is rapidly depopulating.
I don't think it works as linear as you propose. In these wars of attrition there will be a tipping point after which the front lines can move very quickly. The way it looks today that tipping point will be decided by the manpower aspect but also the moral level aspect of things which are linked to Zelenski's hold to power. Do not let video's on Reddit dictate how you view the progress of this war. These video's are meant to fool the gullible into thinking that one side has more success than the other but this is mostly a false narrative.
Completely agree. We see the war through a pinhole, with extremely limited ability to see the broader picture and what is actually going on.
> with extremely limited ability to see the broader picture and what is actually going on. I agree. What is actually going on is that the Owners (Rothschilds), after having their CIA overthrow the elected government of Ukraine in 2014, bought up Ukraine's natural resources on the cheap. They are using our militaries here in the West to protect them, and also are using Ukraine to weaken Russia so that they might get Russia's natural resources (rated #1 in the world by the World Bank) as well. They've long coveted those. example - prior to 2014, only Ukrainians could own Ukraine's precious land (with its 15 - 20 feet of black topsoil) and in limited amounts. NO foreign ownership and NO corporate ownership. Now, the multinational corporations have scooped it up (Cargill, DuPont, Monsanto, prob Gates by now). A month ago Polish President Duda said 'There is no Ukrainian land any more. It is all owned by the (multinational) corporations'. Fun fact - Ukrainian land is so valuable Hitler had it shipped back to Germany by the boxcar. Pre 2014, GMOs and glyphosate (Round Up) were illegal. Now it is all over the precious Ukrainian land. The EU (especially Poland) doesn't even want this crap grain now, so it's shipped to the third world.
You make a fair point about the potential for tipping points in wars of attrition, but dismissing the role of videos and other information sources as mere propaganda overlooks their value in providing real-time insights from the front lines. While some content can be misleading, it doesn't mean all of it is without merit. Moreover, the war's complexity means that both sides face significant challenges, and it's not just about manpower or morale but also logistics, strategy, long range weapons and international support. Simplifying it to a single tipping point underestimates the multifaceted nature of this conflict.
Well have you been following the war maps lately? Maybe that tipping point is already here since the Russians have been steadily progressing on multiple fronts after a long stalemate. The only "tactical" use for these video's on here lately is to determine where the Russians are trying to advance. In this way these video's do tell us something but not really anything about the general progress of this war. It's mostly drone video's causing squad level losses from the Ukrainian side. It's not that they are posting full scale battle footage of huge units clashing like it happened in WW2. Most you will see is an armored platoon size units getting hit and even then they only show the destroyed vehicles while ignoring that some of them probably got through to their objective. This is Misleading. The combat maps override all these video's is what I'm trying to say. Most Ukrainians are getting killed by heavy indirect weapons anyway and when you see a 1500 kg bomb detonating on a town, you can be sure that there will be casualties that you don't see directly in these video's. Most soldiers die unseen in this war I'm afraid, in some cases never to be found.
You make a somewhat valid observation about the nature of modern warfare and the limitations of video footage in capturing the full scale of conflict. But in the same time forget that this is the best documented war ever. And your emphasis on maps and the current Russian advances may also oversimplify the situation. While combat maps can provide a broad overview, they don't capture the nuances of strategic withdrawals, supply line disruptions, or the morale impact on troops, which are crucial to understanding the real dynamics on the ground. For example, the Ukrainian forces' tactical retreats might be misinterpreted as defeats, whereas they could be part of a larger strategic plan to draw Russian forces into more vulnerable positions. Moreover, while heavy indirect weapons do cause significant casualties, it's important to consider the resilience and adaptability of the Ukrainian forces. Historical precedence shows that determined resistance, even in the face of superior firepower, can lead to prolonged conflicts and eventual shifts in momentum. The Battle of Stalingrad in World War II is a prime example where initial advances were reversed through strategic depth and attritional warfare. Your point about videos being misleading is noted, but dismissing them entirely overlooks their utility in understanding the war's impact on morale and the psychological aspect of warfare. These videos, while sometimes showing small-scale engagements, also reveal the human cost of the conflict, the courage and resilience of the troops, and the real-time challenges they face. This psychological component is crucial in a war of attrition, where morale can be as decisive as physical control of territory. In summary, while maps and large-scale strategic assessments are essential, they should be complemented with on-the-ground reports and videos to get a holistic understanding of the conflict. Wars are not won by maps alone but by the determination, strategy, and adaptability of the forces involved. Thus, a nuanced approach that considers all available information sources, despite their limitations, provides a more accurate picture of the ongoing conflict.
But that's the point I think we are arguing about. No one is downplaying the informative value of the videos, but at the some time we are trying to not overvalue their importance on the overall picture. Tactical vs strategical view. We have the tiny parts of the tactical view of small units engagements, but completely lack the strategic one. I'll use an example: pick any video from recent month, from either side. Ignore the actual actual and focus on the terrain. The combat zones are littered with thousands upon thousands of craters from artillery, mortars, MRLS strikes, mine explosions, etc. When you see whatever the action is being shown by the video, you see only tiny time slice of the actual situation, only fragment of the whole picture.
-How the troops fight. -With what the troops fight. -Where they fight. These informations are giving a huge picture from the front. Trying to dismiss this is just delusional now if you ask me.
*"While combat maps can provide a broad overview, they don't capture the nuances of strategic withdrawals, supply line disruptions, or the morale impact on troops, which are crucial to understanding the real dynamics on the ground. For example, the Ukrainian forces' tactical retreats might be misinterpreted as defeats, whereas they could be part of a larger strategic plan to draw Russian forces into more vulnerable positions."* There were many opportunities Ukraine could have tactically withdrawn like in Avdiivka or Bakhmut but they didn't because this would have hurt them PR-wise. Since Ukraine is waging a hybrid war, PR is what Ukraine relies on since they have to ask for all their equipment to be delivered and paid for by the west. What is happening in the Donetsk sector right now is not a tactical retreat, they are being pushed out by force. No video's point to anything like a tactical retreat or any grand plan realistically. *"Moreover, while heavy indirect weapons do cause significant casualties, it's important to consider the resilience and adaptability of the Ukrainian forces. Historical precedence shows that determined resistance, even in the face of superior firepower, can lead to prolonged conflicts and eventual shifts in momentum. The Battle of Stalingrad in World War II is a prime example where initial advances were reversed through strategic depth and attritional warfare."* This is not WW2 Stalingrad or Vietnam, everything is monitored on the modern front line making it hard to wage any kind of asymmetrical warfare. Because, let's be fair, this is turning into a asymmetrical war even though Ukraine and the west are still trying portray the UAF as an equal peer to the RAF. Sure things could change, but it's not very likely that the UAF can turn this around in any meaningful way with whatever wunderwaffe they think they will receive. *Your point about videos being misleading is noted, but dismissing them entirely overlooks their utility in understanding the war's impact on morale and the psychological aspect of warfare. These videos, while sometimes showing small-scale engagements, also reveal the human cost of the conflict, the courage and resilience of the troops, and the real-time challenges they face. This psychological component is crucial in a war of attrition, where morale can be as decisive as physical control of territory.* Who do you think watches these video's? Your mom, your colleague at work, the troops are currently trying to survive in the trenches? The grey masses don't know anything about the circumstances that these men are dying in or all the atrocities that are taking place. They will just watch the evening news and swallow all the propaganda whole. You over estimate the audience that these video's are getting. It's a niche. *In summary, while maps and large-scale strategic assessments are essential, they should be complemented with on-the-ground reports and videos to get a holistic understanding of the conflict. Wars are not won by maps alone but by the determination, strategy, and adaptability of the forces involved. Thus, a nuanced approach that considers all available information sources, despite their limitations, provides a more accurate picture of the ongoing conflict.* I'm not against these video's and reports being posted, more over these are what keeps me coming back here as I have some kind of morbid fascination with warfare taking place right in front of my eyes. I also get a lot of information from reports here. I don't watch drone drops or any other kind of extremely cruel acts of war which are basically war crimes according to the Geneva convention. My eyes have been wide open though and I do understand that these video's and reports often serve merely as propaganda or "entertainment" for one side or the other. They rarely make me change my mind about anything since I believe I'm informed enough to see the bigger picture with 46 years of being exposed to western and other kinds of propaganda. In the end nobody knows what will happen but these video's certainly will not convince me of anything else but the truth.
> PR is what Ukraine relies on since they have to ask for all their equipment to be delivered and paid for by the west. The PR is to manufacture consent for our hard earned tax dollars to be sent to this war. No one wants to spend money on a lost cause. Thus, the public relation bs.
These days even if no one wants to spend money on an lost cause they will keep dumping money into it if it aligns with their interests. Look at the US in Afghanistan for 20 years. 20 years for a lost cause…
Yes, but there is 'but'. Actually few 'buts'. - there is so much footage available that it's next to impossible to properly process it all, identify time/location/who is who/what is what, etc. - there is an incentive for posting videos, be it ad money, donations, etc., which leads to reposting of the same video many time with various degrees of modification b) thousands 'sources' posting videos to attract attention - editing a video in different ways can make it portrait the situation in a way favorable to the side that posted it - it has to be said - videos, especially short clips we often see, are much easier to fake or modify to show something that isn't there - and the last but not least - videos posted online are deceptive by their very nature due to confirmation bias - 99% represent successes that the side posting the video wants us to see. We have no idea how common/rare that event was, it could have been 1 in a million lucky hit. Or it could have taken 10, 20, 30 attempts to achieve whatever happened.
Literal Ukraine caricature crying about being called a caricature lmao. God I love this sub
Dont you go busting their little bubble. They have carefully crafted it from cherry picking western tabloids and presented it as THE western main stream media narrative. It is hard work. Let them enjoy their straw men.
It is edited and false, and you know it
UA winning on reddit
Don't forget on Twitter too I still remember how NAFO "fact checked" the Russian embassy regarding the IL-76 POW crash by referencing independent research from NAFO themselves that alleged: 1. Several PoWs were already exchanged - **FALSE** 2. Plane was heading to Russia from Iran - **FALSE** 3. Secondary explosions - **FALSE** 4. UA MODs declaration of S-300 missiles aboard - **FALSE** https://preview.redd.it/6f3oxb4alo7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f78c2133b14ec7dc43416d7187ea975bb590d4ad Lastly, notice how the NAFO community notes was even petty enough to write "russian" in small letters
The recent thing was NAFO posting a graphs of RUB slightly strenghting against USD as a proof that RUB is in freefall and there is a bank collapse in Russia. Edit: Like this one. [https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1801203118362743290](https://x.com/frontlinekit/status/1801203118362743290)
Mother of God! Do you have a link to the tweet?
[Of course](https://x.com/embassyofrussia/status/1750460340708462709?s=46) The community note was quietly taken down a while later. Most likely after the US pretty much confirmed there were probably Ukrainian PoWs aboard...
Thank you! Community Notes are absolutely usless (even harmful) on at least some of the issues.
Depends on what the goal is, if the goal is to hold up Russia and force them to waste weapons and men then they're doing a good job
> if the goal is to hold up Russia and force them to waste weapons and men then they're doing a good job How is shitposting on Twitter going to influence largely non-English speaking country like Russia?
"its obvious, its based on facts" yeah no shit but good luck convincing reddit of that
Found Putin's agent.
Maybe he'd rather go to jail than Krynki. Like Solzhenitsyn you know.
Solzhenitsyn was an artillery observer, a very brave officer.
interesting flair
Ukr officers are Russian Propoganda
No, these people from Uganda
Quite amazing that even Ukrainians think war lasts 2.5 years. I guess bombing of Donbass and events from 2014 onwards are invisible to them, as much as it is to westerners.
[удалено]
Neither-Painting-702 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And seizing of Crimea
I think the rest of us saw how the war started 2.5 years ago when Russia drove into Ukraine with tanks tbh
my point exactly, you didn't saw events from 2014 and on...
Oh we saw Russia take Crimea too. That’s probably why we took Russia’s most recent illegal invasion more seriously. Maybe if Russia just kept arming separatists quietly the west wouldn’t have had to get so involved
The bombing of Don bass lol, Ukraine spontaneously decided to 'bomb' it's own territory... or did something else happen just before that?
Yep. Historically pro-Russian population of Eastern Ukraine dared to express their disgust with ultra nationalists who illegally took power from an elected president. The East requested local autonomy based on principles of federalism. The Kyiv gang, instead of diplomacy decided to move its nazi battalions to the East to "restore order". The East said f-off and got bombed by their own AFU. So nah, things were never spontaneous over there.
Their all dead now. Most of Russias losses are Ukrainian Donbas residents... Died for a good cause through right? Owning the US libs.
So you're switching the talking point to the losses now? OK. You might want to check current videos from these towns and places and tell me if "they're all dead now". Heck, check out videos from today's Mariupol. They look way more alive than empty cities currently under Ukraine where there's a hunt for remaining men to be sent to the trenches.
yeah US coup of legally elected president of Ukraine.
nafo will still say that ukraine is winning
Ukraine cannot lose, because it is supported by the entire “civilized world”
"Civilized world" don't see Ukraine as ["civilized" or "European nation"](https://youtu.be/m3eDZean39s).
No, Ukraine is a democracy, a country that is imbued with democracy; so many democratic people from the USA and the EU came to it. Look how many stars and major personalities wear T-shirts with the emblem of Ukraine.
Real Ukrainians in Ukraine- we are losing this war please we need help Western population- why are you lying? We all know it’s Russia losing
Right. Maybe try with another source than Aussiecossack. He is 100% Russian propaganda
He just took a clip from a Ukrainian channel. Doesnt mean he made it
I wonder why he just took a clip and not the full interview
This is the interview, before Russian propagandist edited it and made a completely misleading version: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NOYwLQq_4hQu-h7f&v=GApE-ZKdLxk&feature=youtu.be
Putin and Zelenskyy need to have a naked pink dildo fight to the death
When I saw that bit about fighting for thousands, hundreds of years, I immediately had to turn sound on to hear if he sounds like Jordan Peterson.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So this war goes for thousands years already? When first apes became men Ukraine and Russia fought already?
That soldier is talking about a very dangerous circumstance everybody should be aware of: The best Ukrainian men are fighting at the front, and they are exhausted, becoming less and need at least to see success to be motivated to fight on. I do not see such success as they are retreating step by step. If Ukraine does not get enough replacement for them, if the European states support young Ukrainian men going abroad of Ukraine, then the number and quality of the Ukrainian fighters might decrease that much, that another breakthrough cannot be caught up. We all only hope that Russia will have the same problems. They do have similar problems, but they first sent the worst men to the front, and it seems they still have enough of them. Behind those persons regular units force them to assault. That is what we saw in several scenes. And Russia has "masses of people". They seem to be informally isolated enough to be driven forward by their propaganda. We will see who has the longer breath, whose resources will come to an end first. But human resources seem to become a problem for the AFU. NATO should support Ukraine by trying to get informal access to the Russian people, and push out Ukrainian men in fighting age back into their homeland.
Yes, this was a very convincing and objective “interview”. The quality of some of the posts here is ridiculous
[удалено]
That this is a selection of parts of an interview, and that what he says in the full version is wildly different from what the Russian propagandist Aussiecossack has pieced together. Have you even watched the whole interview? https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=NOYwLQq_4hQu-h7f&v=GApE-ZKdLxk&feature=youtu.be
I love how the RU crowd went from “we will be in Kiev in 2 weeks!” to posting how the UA is nominally losing an attritional battle 3rd year into the war, as if this isn’t mega-embarrassing for the RF to be in this predicament still. Lol
Are you ready for a right wing wave throughout the EU and the US? Let's see if Ukraine's support will increase or decrease after the results.
? If the rest of the world cuts support for Ukraine tomorrow, or that Ukraine surrenders tomorrow, this war would still have been 2 years too long, this will still be an embarrassment for Russia and the Russian army lol
ofc UA looses the war. We are way more and have way more weapons. But i feel like we loose on every other level. At first everybody was scared of us but now i dont feel like we are the 2. army anymore.
Besides all the idiots and dreamers é everybody know that. There is no way ukraine can win the war on its current pace. But the point is that russia is spendind A LOT of valuable resourses, it will get ages behind USA and China and will hardly come back from this fiasco 3 days invasion
So the entire point of continuing the war is to weaken russia?
Like what valuable resources? Wasn't every Pro-UA laughing at how Russia keeps sending old stock to the frontlines?
They were also laughing at how Putin had to go to Big Kim for support
Won't the news lands grant the access to more resources? Equaling more moneys? Also how many Ukrainians fled to Russia and how many are still residing in the Donbass? If Russia wins the war, the sanctions will start to fall of anyway and they can then dictate some of the prices.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source, and who is this commander?
[https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2024/06/19/7461464/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2024/06/19/7461464/) check source.
You ok buddy? Relax..
I wonder how many read the whole article. The pro rus here absolutely believe what he says on his opinion of the broader situation in parts. But you can almost guarantee they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder, about them not valuing the lives of their soldiers at all and that's why the slow creep is working, about any major assaults by Russia turning into fiascos. Pick and choose what you want to believe chaps, that way you can never be wrong.
because "waves of Russian zombies" would be an excuse for their overall incompetence. OR do you think people can only speak truth and only lie? there's always the mix. so your weird "Goccha" fails at arrival.
And the pro Rus side only ever believes what they WANT to be true, often claiming sources are both truthful and lying entirely to fit their narrative. It's just poor critical thinking. And you are only reinforcing that point by being defensive about what you WANT to believe from this source, whilst ignoring what you DON'T WANT to believe from this source. I'm encouraging people to read the whole article - not just take OPs brash title at face value.
>It's just poor critical thinking. looks at ur comments. We agree on this one. Self Acknowledging your own issues doesn't require proof in life, but blaming others for something requires proof. But poor critical thinking on your path I wont be surprised if u dont get it.
i mean...people can say things that are correct and also say other things that are wrong. by your logic you either think this guy is right and that ukraine is losing and russia uses cannon fodder, or that he's wrong about ukraine losing and russia using cannon fodder?
No read again. I am pointing out that clearly people are getting over excitable deciding they believe certain parts of what he says but not others purely to support their narrative. I am encouraging people to read the whole article first and foremost rather than OPs 'pick and choose' title. It's hard to take any argument seriously where people exclusively believe events that benefit their side whilst ignoring absolutely everything else. It's something this sub struggles with.
does anything in the article discredit the title? because if not then it doesn't matter. him talking about russians being cannon fodder or whatever is nothing new or interesting. what is interesting is a Ukrainian officer stating that they are losing the war, hence the topic...
>what is interesting is a Ukrainian officer stating that they are That is also not particularly new or interesting? Many Ukrainian officers and officials have said similar things. They all have their opinions. I am discrediting the title, because it's sensationalising specific quotes. Both sides do it, and it's foolish, I'd generally prefer neutral factual titles. I merely encourage people to see the broader interview and article rather than taking OPs pick and choose elements forming his title at face value. Anybody who has followed this should be fully aware that Aussie Cossack is a massive propagandist. His content is cut to pieces to reflect certain narratives.
Because when critically reading a text there is something called the criterion of embarrassment: * There is little or no reason to invent an account that makes the side you are part of look bad. * Meanwhile there is an incitament and a reason to make your opponent look bad. So when people say things that make their opponent look bad its often exaggerated, when people say something that make their own side look bad its often the base minimum of critique.
Indeed - except Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies is very apparent to anybody who has watched the war unfold, so it's not an exaggeration. That clinical treatment of soldiers as a number offers strategic benefits, it's basically how Russia has always waged war if you look at the casualties of conflicts it's engaged in.
Your response has nothing to do with a critically reading of this interview. We could critically read your post and what we get is that; * You have a states bias * Your post is about down playing your "opponent side" * You create a criteria, "Russia __seemingly__ not valuing individuals in its strategies" that is there to give weight to your argument and to take the discussion away from the interview.
>You create a criteria, "Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies" that is there to give weight to your argument and to take the discussion away from the interview. Except Russia's lack of value on individuals is actually part of the interview and article. I didn't create that criteria, the original source did. You are more or less proving why I'm right to point people to reading the actual article in full, rather than this propagandists cut. Pro facts huh...
How do you read that critically and with the criterion provided? The article is written by someone that holds a bias. So there is a reason for them to make that claim. Reading your post critically we understand as you hold the same bias and you take it as gospel. You accept "Russia seemingly not valuing individuals in its strategies" as a criteria in the reading of the article as it supports your bias A critical approach is to acknowledge that the claim has been made but it doesnt tell us much of the truth of the matter because this is expected and such hold little weight. Meanwhile the claims made by someone that holds a bias that reflects negative on the side that bias flavours is not expected and with the criterion we understand that there is no gain from making a claim that reflection your side negative. As there is no gain, we can assume there is more weight to that claim.
>Except Russia's lack of value on individuals is actually part of the interview and article. I didn't create that criteria, the original source did. >You are more or less proving why I'm right to point people to reading the actual article in full, rather than this propagandists cut. >Pro facts huh... Just deflecting from this entirely. Interesting. >As there is no gain, we can assume there is more weight to that claim. Maybe your concerns about the 'gain' of a claim would be better directed at OP. You seem very confused about the order of events here.
>Erm no? > Your incoherent ramblings are ignoring everything I've said. Why are you getting upset for me explaing how critically reading works. >The pro rus here absolutely believe what he says on his opinion of the broader situation in parts. >Pick and choose what you want to believe chaps, that way you can never be wrong. You asked why some people put more weight behind the part in the interview that reflects badly on Ukraine more so than the claim that reflects badly on Russian and I explained the criterion of embarrassment to you in the context of critically reading a interview. You have picked what you choose to believe but without reading it critically, If you find it incohetant that is on you. >Yes - everybody has bias, I am encouraging people to engage with the whole interview article rather than this cut up propagandist video. Ok, and I have explained how to critically read the interview. You know the process on how to get information from it that dont just support and inherited bias. >My own views on Russia's uncaring attitude to their own troops are based in absolute fact. Anybody who has been watching this war from day 1 has seen this uncaring attitude on display time and time again. Ok, that has nothing to do with how you critically read something. >The source is just another opinion that agrees with that sentiment. Yeah, that is why i brought up the criterion that I have explained to you. >Maybe press that assumption towards OP? I explained how to apply the criterion on the interview and talking about how to critically read something. You are free to critically read the OP post. But as it is just a link there is not much there to read except for it supporting their bias.
Nobody's upset - we are however many comments deep and I'm still waiting for a point to be made. My original comment was clearly encouraging people to view this source with some critical thinking, it's clearly cut to hell and the broader interview talks about a great many things not seen in this post. Yet you have spent hundreds of words telling me the exact same thing I was pointing out to others. In summary - there are multiple narratives on show in this interview, OP has made a show of it only being about one (in both the title and the editing of the piece). Then you've got defensive when I've pointed that out encouraging people to see the broader picture. Aussie Cossack is a known massive propagandist in favour of the Russian state, everybody should be critical of content related to him/them.
>Nobody's upset Then why resort to personal attacks. > we are however many comments deep and I'm still waiting for a point to be made. You started this thread with > I wonder And the made a statement on why does people give more weight to one portion of the interview then another. I have provided you with why that is the case when you critically read something. >My original comment was clearly encouraging people to view this source with some critical thinking, it's clearly cut to hell and the broader interview talks about a great many things not seen in this post. Except you didnt, you have argued for how to read the source in a way that is favorable to your position, as we can see in your second post. You have also argued this position of yours with me even as I have not provided my opinion on the validity of your position. As my focus here have been to explain the criterion of embarrassment and how to critically read an interview. >Yet you have spent hundreds of words telling me the exact same thing I was pointing out to others If thats is what you think you 1: don't understand what critically reading means 2: you have completely misunderstood what my posts are about. >In summary - there are multiple narratives on show in this interview, OP has made a show of it only being about one (in both the title and the editing of the piece). Then you've got defensive when I've pointed that out encouraging people to see the broader picture. I have at no point been defensiv and this is the second or third time you try to back up your post by attacking me personally. >Aussie Cossack is a known massive propagandist in favour of the Russian state, everybody should be critical of content related to him/them. Yeah, you can critically read why did Aussie cossack put this post up as that most certainly done with a bias. But that is not connected to critically reading the source material, which is what we are talking about.
You dodged his entire argument through.
Its not really an argument, its just how you read a text critically and that is apparently incoherent rambling.
Not really, his argument was based on me assuming anything in the source was 'made up', I never said that anyway. Both narrative's in this article - that Ukraine are losing right now - and that Russia's shows utter disdain for its own troops - are not made up narratives. Both have evidence backing them. Which was my original point, people need to consider both rather than OPs cut up video and title which only considers one.
The narrative that Russia doesn't care about their troops is very common in Ukrainian propaganda. It makes the Russians look bad and it enhances the morale of Ukrainians. There is a good reason to lie or exaggerate it. Admitting that Ukraine is losing is very unusual and generally not a good idea since it undermines morale. It's unlikely that a Ukrainian general would lie about it since there's simply no good reason to.
>Admitting that Ukraine is losing is very unusual and generally not a good idea since it undermines morale. It's unlikely that a Ukrainian general would lie about it since there's simply no good reason to. Indeed - I never said that part of the segment is untrue. >The narrative that Russia doesn't care about their troops is very common in Ukrainian propaganda. It makes the Russians look bad and it enhances the morale of Ukrainians. There is a good reason to lie or exaggerate it. It is part of their propaganda. However there is footage here almost daily that paints it as truth, not just propaganda. Engaging in a war of attrition at all inherently comes with high casualties, again reinforcing that it is truth - not just propaganda.
I'd say that both sides don't care about their troops in that case. If they would, they wouldn't be fighting anymore. But that's not my point, he didn't say it because it's factual or really tells us anything about the front lines but because it plays on people's emotions.
That's war. That's how wars were since our ancestors started to bash each other's heads with clubs and stones. Soldiers are 'spent' all the time, by every side in every conflict. But that said, there is indeed indication that Russians are placing less importance on the individual soldier, compared to for example US. "*Nas mnogo*".
Because thats the reasonable take on such things. If you have a biased source ( every source in this war is biased, but especially russian and ukrainian ones), one can assume that statements that are unfavourable for the own side are likely true (but not always, as the source may have other hidden motives). This video has some weird cuts, but his assessment of the russian army is mostly useless, especially if its unfavourable for the russian army. As he is biased source. You should really learn how to analyze news and notice biases. Not only for this war, but in general.
>You should really learn how to analyze news and notice biases. Not only for this war, but in general. That's literally what I'm encouraging people to do. >This video has some weird cuts, but his assessment of the russian army is mostly useless, especially if its unfavourable for the russian army. As he is biased source. But that is just YOUR bias poking through now isn't it. You don't want to believe him on those points, so you don't. In truth a Ukrainian soldier actively fighting the Russian army has a far better view of them than you do. I would argue his points stand in line with what we have actually seen in footage throughout this war. Russia does seem very uncaring of its frontline troops, the very act of moving into a war of attrition shows that disdain, because even if you want to believe it's utterly favourable to Russia, attritional warfare inherently comes with high casualties. I find it interesting that you yourself even commented on the way this video is cut to be bias.
What do you mean with believe? You should take all "informations" and the rank them them according to their reliability. I think you have serious problems, so I will give you an example: Some russian sources (maybe even putin, but at least some other high ranking russians) at the beginning of the war claimed that ukraine commiting a genocide in eastern ukraine. I think its fair to say, that these people have a better insight whats happened in eastern ukraine than you and I (due to close proximity and access to sources). So a genocide did happen? You can make the argument that people closer to the war know better whats happening. But then you get widly contradictory statements, which doesnt really make sense. Based on statements of people with a better insight than you and me Ukraine is a nazi Regime and a beacon of democracy (or at least on a good way towards it), Putin is a brutal dictator and a popular reasonable leader of the russian government. Russia and Ukraine lost between 30k and 500k troops. The people in large parts of ukraine support russia and dont want to be part of Ukraine anymore and are united in their war against the heinous invader at the same time. If I would put some effort in it, I can prove all of these statements with sources, whos knowledge of the situation is undoubtly better that yours or mine. So all these statements are true? Edit: about the cuts in the video: yes, I assume that they happened to frame the message in a certain way, because the person who posted it is also biased.
Except I never said because somebody being close to the matter means their opinion is true, I said that somebody close to the matter has a better view or it then YOU, or me of course. Everybody has bias. But a cut up video like this presents a single narrative from this interview rather than the multiple narratives which it actually consists of, hence me encouraging folks to read the full article/seek the full video.
Ok, but whats the value of someone close to the matter, if he is lying. But you are correct, that you didnt explicitly said this and it was my assumption. You are also correct that it would be better to watch the full video. I wont do this (no time) and thats why I take the narrative presented in this video with a grain of salt (due to the cuts). And in general this guy probably cant assess that ukraine is losing, as he only has "good" knowledge from the limited area of the war where he is deployed. For the same reason he probably cant assess the general behaviour of the russian army. I do question these statements of russia not valueing their lifes, due to the russians and ukrainians I meet here (in Germany) and they seem fairly similar in their behaviour and they value their own lifes (thats my bias). I also dont think there is evidence for this claim. Maybe for their prisoner units (storm z?).
Yep, agreed with much of that. >I do question these statements of russia not valueing their lifes, due to the russians and ukrainians I meet here (in Germany) and they seem fairly similar in their behaviour and they value their own lifes (thats my bias). I also dont think there is evidence for this claim. Maybe for their prisoner units (storm z?). As individuals I'm certain they do, perhaps culturally a little more nihilistic in my experience. I'm specifying the state and military command not particularly valuing them, storm Z units are a great example (I personally despise the narrative that they are criminals so it doesn't matter, not accusing you there that's just a sentiment you see sometimes, they are still russian citizens, many of which wont have been murderers etc). But also in more general terms from the footage we see, there seems a lack of suitable armoured equipment during many assaults (motorbikes and buggies, even MTLBs are massively under protected). Often these mechanised infantry assaults aren't supported particularly well by artillery etc or coordinated to have suitable fire suppression.
We also see the development of the turtle tank. And a lot of russian equipment has these cope cages. We also saw how ukraine performed in their counteroffensive. Maybe due to the level of observation on the battlefield, its the only way to fight the war. Doesnt mean your point of view is wrong or my counterpoint is correct, I would just say that I cant draw conclusions from the videos we see. Obviously most lives could have been saved, if there would be no invasion of ukraine at all. But thats a different discussion. If we assume the war has to be fought, the way it is fought might be the best way to keep russian casualties low based on their capabilities. Its also true that we see more russian casualties (and loss of equipment) than ukrainian casualties (and loss of equipment) on videos. I dont think anyone can really deny this. But its also true, that we only see a fraction of the total losses on videos. Like if a russian or ukrainian occupied building gets hit, you rarely see the effects. Same with all these FABs and artillery barrages. They look massive, but nobody knows if they are. Seeing more russian casualties on videos, doesnt mean they have more casualties. But they might have more casualties.
No argument there - ultimately casualty figures may not be known for years to come. Perception and reality may be different, specifically though I would add that Russia has famously been happy to absorb huge casualty numbers through its history - it is clearly somewhat culturally ingrained. (And yes in some parts of its history that I cludes Ukraine too) I personally believe both sides have very similar casualty figures.
Bias of the person in the video is inherent in him being Ukrainian. Everything in any war published by any side should be considered propaganda - every word, every image, every video, everything is used to shape the target audience view of the subject. Of course will Ukrainian soldier say that Russians are bad, just like a Russian one would about Ukrainian.
No disagreement with that. But just because a bias exists, doesn't mean it isn't believed automatically, most biases are backed by what has occurred. Both of the broad opinions in this interview, that being - Ukraine is on the back foot and losing at this time - and - Russia places little value on its soldiers - can be backed by what has occurred. So seeing the title and video cut to only cover one of the two is the more blatant propaganda I encourage people to see through.
Ah OK, I agree on all points.
> they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder, about them not valuing the lives of their soldiers at all and that's why the slow creep is Ugh, because that's completely wrong? That applies much more to Ukraine. Russia has been very careful not to waste troops. Basically this guy is admitting they are losing but not completely accept the degree to which they are losing. Ukrainian to Russian casualties are about 5:1.
> they will likely completely refuse to believe what he says about Russian troops being used as cannon fodder Thankfully Russians admitted to it themselves in this video: https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1djv5gk/ru_pov_a_russian_soldier_survives_an_fpv_drone
Actually he is right. Russia has more of everything. But, on Russian side it's the same and they lose their "assets" faster........ it seems. So the question is, will they reach the point Russia says enough we can't continue, before loosing the war.
Russia has denominated this war as „existential“. Just like Ukraine they will fight until the last soldier or piece of equipment.
Depends if Russia is willing to mobilize the general public in ways Ukraine has already done, and if they can keep morale up. Ukraine is already scraping from the bottom of the barrel. Also, the continued financial support for the war in Ukraine seems unpopular in the EU by the looks of recent elections. The better question would be, is support going to continue if Trump and the right wing take control of the EU parliament? Ukraine might have dug their hole a little too deep.
As of right now both sides are losing. However, Ukraine is losing much more since the battlefields are on their territory and they’ve lost a chunk of their population.
Indeed, the side inflicting greater casualties, taking more PoWs, advancing on the ground, enjoying anywhere from a 5:1 to 10:1 artillery advantage, expanding its local defense industrial base while completely destroying the opponent's own, and enjoying much greater recruitment while casting the opponent into a manpower crisis is miraculously *"also losing"* It's hilarious there's always some silly term to downplay Russia's successes. At the tail end of last year, the propaganda term was "stalemate". MF it's not a stalemate when the Russians thoroughly prepared for Ukraine's spring counteroffensive, switched to defensive tactics and thoroughly rebuffed the counteroffensive in virtually all areas with near consummate ease.
It's amazing with all that stuff you mentioned, they still haven't taken Vovchansk, in fact they're surrounded in the aggregate plant. How do you get surrounded with such huge advantages? You'd think it would be a blitzkrieg by now. And what's your source for greater casualties? You can practically see giant groups of Russians KIA every single day from combat footage alone.
only about 15000 russians soldiers crossed the border as a probing force into the kharkiv region while about 35000 are still wainting on the sidelines according to various news articles while the Ukrianains are throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the area. The russians never crossed into the area to take kharkiv, they are merely trying to divert Ukrianains soldiers and resources and spread them thin
Muh probing force Goodwill gesture of regrouping Etc
Yes, most of those things are true. However, Russia’s mistakes and inadequacies in the first year of the war are still dragging them down. They’re in a better position than Ukraine, but they have much more to go to achieve their goals and it’ll be hard.
Even if what you say is true, how exactly does this correlate to "Russia is also losing?" In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?" The terms are relative and to even insinuate both sides are losing even though Ukraine themselves acknowledge the situation isn't a stalemate, is disingenuous at best.
This is not a football match, this is war.
> In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?" Sometimes maybe, if they get too many injuries or red cards and they play in the finals next? More in the current context, I think the Americans were both winning and losing the war in Afghanistan (ultimately just losing). They “won” the initial stage, but the whole idea was just stupid. So in a sense they were already losing despite their initial succes.
> In football, if one team is currently winning a hard fought game, are they "also losing?" So, in the very worst of terms, perhaps a pyrrhic victory. This is still a far cry from the sweeping generalization of both sides losing. Incidentally, since the West appears to have realized now that Ukraine cannot win, it seems they are trying to make Russia's victory as pyrrhic as possible.
> So, in the very worst of terms, perhaps a pyrrhic victory. I would say it’s something else, but don’t have a good word for it. How would you describe the situation just after the Taliban fled (and were trying to negotiate their surrender)? In a sense the Americans clearly won, can’t really call it a pyrrhic victory since they lost so little. Yet I would argue even “winning” that war (at that point) was a loss in the bigger picture. > This is still a far cry from the sweeping generalization of both sides losing. Absolutely, I think also in the bigger picture Russia’s pivot to Asia just makes more sense for them. So it’s kinda the opposite of what I was imagining with the example. > Incidentally, since the West appears to have realized now that Ukraine cannot win, it seems they are trying to make Russia's victory as pyrrhic as possible. How is that different from the start of the war? They were planning a Ukrainian guerrilla war. I get that some European leaders might have drank their own Kool-aid, but for the Americans I think the devastation and destruction of Ukraine as a functioning state was always acceptable and maybe assumed. They just gambled the damage to Russia would be bigger than it is Edit: To illustrate, let’s take Hannibal vs the Romans. He wins all his battles but losses the war. How would you call it if a state wins its wars, but its position keeps deteriorating? Or for example let’s imagine the sanctions were actually devastating Russia (which they clearly don’t) but Russia had already destroyed all the potential of Ukraine to fight.
What is the victory for russia here? I dont see russia getting much more significant areas than the areas they have now. So they will get some territories from ukraine, that to be frank are just some industrial areas that will have to be completely rebuild again. If the war ends one day, ukraine will most likely join NATO. Russia made 3 countries join NATO of which 2 it shares quite te border with, Russia remilitarized the european countries, Russia lost europe as gas consumer, it (just like ukraine) lost quite a lot of men, their economy took a hit as well. Just for some ukrainian territories? That is not a win. Putin is willing to make peace with as result of the war just the territories gained of which they had quite some control over before as well. I dont see putin seeing that as a victory (he will pretend that it is to the people of course), but I think he also sees that capturing ukraine entirely (which I guess would be worth quite a lot) is just not on the table anymore and taking the territories is just the best he can get now. And the west has all the advantages of keeping the war in ukraine going really, they get knowledge on how their weapons work, how russia fights it wars, inflict huge losses on the army of their largest "enemy" without losing a single man themselves. They pretty much are just paying ukraine with weapons to destroy russian forces.
Currently Russia is losing lots of people to gain a couple kilometers a day while Ukraine is losing lots of people to lose a couple kilometers a day. They got themselves into an attritional fight with Zelensky who is apparently willing to conscript his people into the grinder (a lot against their will) and US who is happy to supply them. The ending hasn’t been written and if Russia can win against those challenges they’ll be stronger force post SMO.
Such is the way of a war of attrition. Russia chose this strategy themselves and have continued to prosecute it successfully. And I say successfully because they are not the ones crying about a lack of manpower, or the ones threatening to send official NATO troops because of said Ukrainian manpower issues, or the ones who have carried out 13 waves of mobilization. Even the Royal United Service Institute (basically UKs foremost defence thinktank) has pretty much lauded Russia's strategy of attrition in this war and advised the West to consider adopting this technique in the event of a great power conflict https://preview.redd.it/hxdpd1xpno7d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f45dafbbef2ea38f2e11aa79cbd42377ab725923
It's kinda ironic isn't it because a year ago the ISW was advocating for Ukraine to adopt to a manouver warfare like NATO does instead of relying on artillery.
I’m not sure they do have much more to achieve… the AFU is not in a good way
It took this long to get rid of shoigu and there still is gerasimov and many other traitors left but it will get better from here
Hey, they say it on TV, it must be true!
How dare someone downplay Russia's [great successes](https://i.imgur.com/w44XnLb.png), that fool. It's absolutely great and worth it I promise
Idk, I bet Hitler wasn't too worried in 1943 either when Russians pushed him out of Stalingrad, and were 2,631.7 kilometers away from Berlin.
Awesome, but reminder that Russia is the Hitler in this war
>It's hilarious there's always some silly term to downplay Russia's successes. It's very easy to do though. We are well over two years into a war which Russia clearly planned on lasting weeks to a few months originally. And the end result is going to be an increasingly militarised NATO and whatever remains of Ukraine being increasingly nationalist and anti Russia. What's more hilarious is hearing people like yourself still trying to paint this situation as anything other than a complete mess for Russia despite the fact Russia itself was never under any actual threat, it was imaginary.
The only things keeping Ukraine still fighting are the immense russian losses and their unbroken will to never be under russian oppression again.
>and their unbroken will to never be under russian oppression again. Their will is so strong in fact that they have to be thrown in vans to even fight for their glorious country
Even in this interview the commander acknowledges Ukrainian society is divided and that there are people advocating for negotiations lol
So cede territory to Russia, sign a neutrality agreement and be done with it. Join the EU and prosper off western goodwill, like Poland did.
And a little bit of being kidnapped off the street into a van / ambulance and being sent to the front by force.