Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

INVADER_BZZ t1_jab77kt wrote

Bakhmut has served it's purpose. I hope UA does not allow encirclement of any number of forces and pulls them out in time, to fight another day. Madyar's report from Bakhmut sounded really grim today. Russia's tactics of throwing wave after wave of bodies to gain ground meter by meter sort of "worked". But after taking it, Wagnerites will be exhausted and exposed to inevitable counteroffensive. It will be tactical (not strategical) victory, but at very heavy cost. And there's literally hundreds of Bakhmuts ahead of them.

270

Witcher587 t1_jabvhjy wrote

Didn't UA just do a counter attack to the north with few batallions?

Losing Bakhmut would mean very little, Russians failed to drive UA reserves in that direction and thet lost thousands of soldiers in taking it. UA did the US's Vietnam for the Russians there.

64

arronaxx88 t1_jabzz24 wrote

Bakhmut is considered to be not unimportant by Zelensky who says that it it will give them an opening to advance further to the strategically important eastern cities of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk (Source: CNN, cant link it because I get an error message by reddit).

Also Michael Kofman, the director of Russia Studies at the U.S.-based Center for Naval Analyses, says that Bakhmut represents “a gateway” to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, both of which have been subject to recent Russian missile strikes. (Source: Time Magazine, same problem with the links. If you copy that text to google you will find the source)

43

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jac3kl4 wrote

It's the new talking point to keep morale and support up by minimizing the importance of the loss. Notice how it's being repeated over and over now. Somehow it's simultaneously of little importance (despite many figures saying the contrary) and worth dumping loads and loads of soldiers. I think the other narrative to push is that it was meant to be used to "empty military resources from Russia", which is again clearly a point pushed as damage control.

14

Hypertension123456 t1_jac5hh9 wrote

Reddit is fascinating this way. I first noticed it when Sanders was running vs Hillary. As far as Reddit was concerned Hillary never won any state and had no real support.

Now the same with this war. As far as Reddit is concerned the Russian army is hapless. A collection of old men, criminals, and disheartened conscripts begging to go home. All fighting with worse equipment that the average Ukranian farmer.

Then they ignore any information that goes against that narrative. Articles like this one will barely hit the front page of worldnews, and fall off before the day is done. This can be a bubble as bad as any.

60

EndemicAlien t1_jac62vv wrote

That's a bit extreme. There is bias yes, but those who take time out of their day to comment are usually the most extreme ones. And upvoting good news and downvoting bad ones is both a coping behaviour as it is a political statement. No-one wants to upvote Russian successes because it undermines Ukrainian moral and international support. So we don't.

But I would wager that most here absolutely see the war for what it is - currently a stalemate.

20

Wildercard t1_jac819k wrote

Interesting world where comments under articles are more informative than articles.

7

NorthernerWuwu t1_jae4byw wrote

It's always a tricky balance.

The enemy must be weak for morale purposes but strong for the purpose of securing additional military aid. That aid must be seen as vital and of the highest quality but also as unimportant and not of any cost to those giving it.

2

daniel_22sss t1_jad9emq wrote

"A collection of old men, criminals, and disheartened conscripts begging to go home."

Nobody said anything like that. If anything, reddit news showed that russian soldiers will keep going to the slaughter no matter what and their human qualities are dubious at best.

And just because they are incompetent doesn't mean that they can't just throw human waves at ukranians over and over again - which is exactly what they are doing. But taking a small city (it used to have population of 40k-70k) after a YEAR of fighting and countless casualties is not a gigantic russian victory. Its only a single line of defence, and Ukraine has hundreds more, and soon western tanks will arrive. Russia taking Bakhmut is not a sign that they are "winning". Russia took Severodonetsk just a few months before Ukraine did a brilliant counter-offensive and liberated entire Kharkiv oblast and Kherson. Everyone, who is not a coping russian supporter, said ages ago, that Bakhmut no longer holds strategic value, that would be worth all these resources Russia is throwing at it.

Bakhmut served its role as a place, where ukranians could kill A LOT of russian soldiers, and now they can retreat from those ruins.

3

cromwest t1_jacrd58 wrote

Just like people never forgave Clinton, no one will forgive Russia if the narrative is wrong and Russia ends up winning. Could you imagine how angry the world would be with the Russian people? They will never be forgiven and people will accept any hostile act against them. Could you imagine IRA staff being hunted as war criminals decades from now? Doesn't seem far fetched of Russia wins.

1

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jacwqbo wrote

> the world

*Significant chunks of Europe, the US, and AUS/NZ. Not the world.

9

cromwest t1_jad066x wrote

Most other nations have to pretend to care about what those nations think.

−2

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jad5yy8 wrote

Looking down on the global south is not the wisest approach.

2

cromwest t1_jad6znv wrote

Western hegemony is the reality of the situation. Russia is threatening it right now and will be made an example of.

5

ssshield t1_jacz8ui wrote

Progressives wanted Bernie. Debbie Washerman Schulz wanted Hillary to be the first woman president and it to be Schulz's crowning career achievement placing her there, so she literally sabotaged Bernie's campaign from the inside as a total abuse of her position for her own hubris.

It wasn't some make believe dream that Bernie had the momentum and ability to win the Dem primary. If you went to both candidate's campaign events it was night and day the difference in the crowd.

1

ForgottenDreamshaper t1_jac7uwd wrote

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Any information about true state of events in Ukraine gets deleted anywhere, even if it has publicly available proofs for it. Every place, including the Reddit tries to keep up with the narrative, so in the end you consume as much propaganda as russians from their state media. Sadly, there are no platform for people from Ukraine to speek freely and adress major foreign audience, so you will never know all the truth.

−6

jeeepblack t1_jacjhq3 wrote

Seems like you are hoping for the "both sides" type of reporting. Nobody wants to hear Russian bullshit as the aggressor. Nobody has a desire to point out and applaud Russian success... because they are the aggressor.

Stop trying to guilt people into showing a soft spot for Russia. Seriously.

10

EroticPotato69 t1_jadccy7 wrote

Wanting to know and share the truth is not "showing a soft spot for Russia". Truth is the first casualty of war, and your attitude is facilitating that. People deserve to know the truth, even if it isn't what they may want to hear.

4

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jacoxf2 wrote

...and this is what propaganda consumption manifests as.

−6

NopetrainToNopeville t1_jaeq3n6 wrote

Are you honestly trying to imply that rooting against an imperialist regime attacking a sovereign nation is caused by propaganda?

1

ReverseCarry t1_jadiv5l wrote

The people claiming it is totally unimportant are wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct to outsize the strategic importance in the opposite direction either. Because ironically enough, that is also a form of damage control.

Capturing Bakhmut is not akin to capturing Volnovakha. It will not lead to immediate control of Kramatorsk or Slovyansk. It’s best outcome besides opening up the highways is putting those towns in artillery range. Even with those highways, the Russians still have to pass through the smaller towns like Chasiv Yar along the way. It will not be a cakewalk just to get to Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, much less actually take them. It’s better than not having those highways, but the total manpower lost, materiel spent, and political friction generated were not worth a foothold that small.

A victory in Bakhmut might bring home a symbolic win, but strategically its downright Pyrrhic at this point. The manpower and materiel (especially the artillery), would have both been put to better use to reinforce defenses for the upcoming Ukrainian offensives, or in reserve for the pushes in Kreminna.

4

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jae4pm3 wrote

Why would Ukraine, who is getting to the point of mobilizing old men, women and students invest so much manpower in the Bakhmut "meat grinder" if it weren't important?

Either they're strategically insanely bad, or it was worth throwing all that people in.

2

shockage t1_jaegnw6 wrote

Because it:

  • buys time
  • causes attrition to both sides, but that attrition has a bigger effect on Russians long term due to logistics, domestic politics, and morale.

The MO prior to the counter offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson was to just bleed the Russians dry and survive long enough to exhaust the Russian ambitions for Kiev and the whole country.

3

barrygateaux t1_jacbimd wrote

A polish twitter user over exaggerated a Ukrainian report. This was then retweeted by an american twitter user as though it was true, then added to a video by a british youtuber as fact, and then reposted on reddit, and now people are talking about it in this thread where people think it's happening. Unfortunately it's not real.

It's a great example of how the fog of war works against facts. it's developed into a rumour that's spread based on nothing sadly.

29

Wildercard t1_jac7xvv wrote

Where do you all get such up to date info

3

barrygateaux t1_jacavvl wrote

Telegram. Everything you see on reddit regarding the war is from there. If you don't understand Ukrainian or russian it's no use to you.

4

AlkarinValkari t1_jad02qd wrote

Fyi you can translate most messages on telegram by pressing and holding on the message.

2

Dirtypersonpromax t1_jaaxxrp wrote

It’s confusing to read news, I just read elite Russian soldiers are having a bad time.

104

xenoghost1 t1_jabaz7s wrote

Both can be true. The elite forces could be seriously incurring loses while the overall russian forces still winning.

144

UristMcHammer t1_jabvl7j wrote

it's literally the "we've won... but at what cost" meme

44

nagrom7 t1_jac0qt4 wrote

"One more such victory and we are undone" - King Pyrrhus of Epirus, origin of the term 'Pyrrhic victory', which is what Bakhmut would be considered to the Russians. He was famous for winning stunning victories against the Romans that involved so many casualties on his side that he could never capitalise on them.

37

[deleted] t1_jabenny wrote

[deleted]

−9

BigBeerBellyMan t1_jabn0zv wrote

>they've lost 1000 troops a day for 6 months trying to take a town with little strategic importance.

They lost 180,000 troops trying to take Bakhmut?

23

crusnik404 t1_jabohhb wrote

Always interesting seeing second-hand disinformation in real time.

13

PumpkinManGuy t1_jabq78q wrote

Russia isn't measuring victory by lives not lost. They're measuring it by ground taken and if it takes a million men to get their kilometer so be it.

14

fortevn t1_jabt4ej wrote

Bakhmut being little strategic is the most braindead propaganda I've read this year. Zelensky vowed to protect it, urged the West to send more weapons and quickly so they could defend it. Half of the reports of how fierce and hellish the war is being fought were on it. And people still go around saying "oh that city is not important".

What?

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabu1um wrote

I’ve read in military nerd forums about it because I’ve been confused by mixed claims. as I understand it, the city is not itself strategic for logistics or rail or anything. But it is important for Russia to take it to be able to take more important cities like kramatorsk and Sloviansk.

3

thederpofwar321 t1_jabw96q wrote

Its the type of city you hold to buy time, not to win. If its clear holding will be too risky then they'll have to just pull back and repeat elsewhere.

3

BlessedTacoDevourer t1_jacluzx wrote

As it looks currently, Russia will most likely focus on capturing Chasiv Yar, a city close to Bakhmut. It's the only line of supply into Bakhmut itself and capturing it would cut off the Ukrainians in Bakhmut from being resupplied or reinforced. The assumption being that since Ukraine would operationally encircled they would be forced to withdraw their troops, allowing Russia to move in. If this happens, Russia would likely move into Konstantinovka to straighten their frontline which would let their artillery advance and target the next area.

There are two main reason why the advances are made in small steps.

  1. Essentially every little village along the front is a stronghold and incredibly difficult and costly to capture

  2. Russian troops want to stay in range of their short range howitzers and MLRS. Russia has suffered from bad communication already and presumably this is a way to combat that.

Its worth noting that this is a best case scenario for Russia, if Bakhmut falls the troops in Siversk would then be at risk. If this happens the Russians will most likely attack Siversk from Soledar, Lysychansk and Bilohorivka.

If this is successful then Russia could take the M03 highway and move onto Sloviansk. Advancing in this manner would mean advancing for 40km on a very narrow stretch of land, obviously putting those Russians in major risk of being cut off and encircled by the Ukrainians. The likely way Russia will attempt to combat this is by using their troops in Konstantinovka to take the H20 highway and move on Kramatorsk at the same time. This would mean a Russian advance of 30km.

Bakhmut started in August 2022, so it's unlikely that this will be successful, though I'm basing this on information from Feb 13. Something that complicates it is the elevation difference between Sloviansk and Krasna Hora. It's an advantage for Ukraine as it would allow them to see the Russians easier. A similar advantage has been used in Vuhledar to stop the Russians from advancing.

3

RedWojak t1_jabdkbn wrote

I think all soldiers there having a bad time. It's a god damn war where soldiers are trying their best to kill each other. And both sides saying "im fine" or keep silent after they sustain losses, while other side is pointing at each and every small victory. Both sides saying other side is loosing no matter if it's true or not.

56

Fandorin t1_jabspor wrote

I think you're thinking of Vuhledar, where the Russian 155th got mauled. That's the southern front. Bakhmut is in the East and has been stormed by Wagner mercs for months. They've been recently replaced by the regular military that's had some success on the flanks. It's increasingly likely that Ukraine will need to abandon it and retreat to another defensive line.

33

LogJamminWithTheBros t1_jad6zkr wrote

The city only cost tens of thousands of lives to take and hundreds of millions in weaponry. They can celebrate their victory that took 5 months as they prepare to take the next city out of a hundred and lose another 20 thousand or so.

Massive success.

6

shkarada t1_jabyz9z wrote

Everyone is having a miserable time in Bahmut and the war is hell.

10

sylanar t1_jac76n7 wrote

Both sides are having a bad time there.

Russia has been trying to take that city for like 6months and suffered a ridiculous number of casualties trying to do so. At the same time Ukraine has lost a lot to defend it.

Russia really wants to capture the city as some symbolic win, so they're just throwing everything at it. It means they suffer a lot of losses, but also slowly make progress.

Russia should have given up on that city ages ago and tried an offensive somewhere else.

4

daniel_22sss t1_jadaquv wrote

They ARE having a bad time. Russians were storming Bakhmut for a year at this point, and lost a shit ton of soldiers there, while their everyday progress was miniscule.

3

Kaionacho t1_jaccmns wrote

Because alot of news will have a very hard pro Ukraine bias/propaganda, which is kinda understandable but I also hate it so much. It makes it very hard to form opinions/make decisions.

2

LogJamminWithTheBros t1_jad7jol wrote

You can expect a pro Ukraine bias as they are defending against Russia and punching above their weight. By all means read Russian "news" but you can expect zero honesty from it. Go read the bulwark if you want "unbiased" news. Many articles are written by military veterans, although you may just call it pro Ukraine bias anyways since the common consensus is that if Ukraine can keep adapting to what's given to them they can feasibly re take their land.

−4

cesgjo t1_jac7rgi wrote

Okay let me give you an analogy

Imagine a super elite boxer like prime Muhammad Ali vs an amateur high school athlete boxer

Ali should be able to knock out the high school boxer in round 1, right? Well, Ali defeated the highchool kid, but it took him 12 rounds, plus he wasnt able to knock the kid out. You can say that even though the highschool kid lost, Ali was still very incompetent, because what should've been an easy win for him dragged out to 12 rounds

Same thing for Russia and Ukraine here. Ukraine is losing in Bakhmut, yes, but the Russian army is supposed to be elite and superior, so it shouldn't take them "12 rounds" just to defeat Ukraine in Bakhmut

Even if Russia wins in Bakhmut, it's still incredibly devastating for them because they're losing so many soldiers just to squeeze out a small victory

1

ishmal t1_jac2g0i wrote

Yes. What about this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11dewl3/the_situation_in_bakhmut_is_improving_the_ua/

0

barrygateaux t1_jacc2g4 wrote

This was a polish guy claiming it over a day ago from an over exaggerated Ukrainian report, which was retweeted by an american guy, then added to a video by a british youtuber, then posted on reddit where you saw it. No Ukrainian or russian sources are mentioning it. It's a rumour that grew, but based on nothing unfortunately.

A post on reddit is not a good source to use. By the time it gets to reddit it's already old or reposted with a different title by a bot a lot of the time. It's better to get info straight from Ukrainian or russian channels on telegram if you want up to date info.

10

ishmal t1_jacr4xk wrote

Thanks. I will try that.. I have been wishing that there was a single good reliable frontline news source, and maybe that is it. It seems that /r/ukraine wants to focus on morale and happy news. Which I totally get, and it serves its purpose well. I am sure that there are people who need the daily uplift, and I go there many times a day as well. I also find the best donation spots there.

2

degaussyourcrt t1_jadb0q1 wrote

I think perhaps in the entire history of war there has never been nor ever will be a reliable frontline news source. War is one of the most complex human endeavors we undertake, and there’s a reason “fog of war” is a military term. Couple a war on the ground with a war online (where both sides fight for the hearts, minds, and eyeballs of the rest of the world) and it’s a nearly impossible thing for the average Joe to get a truly accurate sense of.

1

A_Dehydrated_Walrus t1_jabro26 wrote

I hope Ukraine starts filtering back to rear defensive positions so they don't end up with another Mariupol situation.

59

xenoghost1 t1_jac0y3r wrote

if Zelenskiy is talking about it going rough, he already is pulling people out.

36

Va-Va-Vooom t1_jac1b64 wrote

Or he has concentrated large amounts of troops nearby. There's nothing to gain to let the enemy know whats up.

8

joho999 t1_jac2gzi wrote

Lots to be gained, he has favourable public opinion, and that in turn influences the people who give Ukraine aid, if you can get the arms to take 3 steps forward by taking one step back then it's worth it.

13

Thue t1_jacgvar wrote

Or it is misdirection to make the Russian overcommit, and then be crushed by a counterattack from the Ukrainian reserves. A modern version of the Parthian shot.

Note that I am not claiming either way. Just that you should always consider the misdirection motive in war. Feinted retreats into ambush are a classic tactic.

4

mechanicalpulse t1_jacnt5n wrote

Exactly my thoughts. I've never heard of the Parthian shot (that was a great read, thank you for the link), but I am reminded of the Battle of Austerlitz in which Napolean deftly executed just such a feinted retreat into ambush. Modern engagements are very different, of course, so I think the Parthian shot is an apt comparison to the grenade-carrying drones that are picking off individual Russian soldiers. In any case, you're right to point out that deception remains an important aspect of military strategy.

3

xenoghost1 t1_jacisub wrote

always a chance, just saying with the information available

1

Couple_Overall t1_jacabi3 wrote

At the start of the war I need to admit I had some part of me that kind of understood Russian agenda in Ukraine. I didn't support the war but I was buying in the "Russians needing to protect their west flank from American/Nato tampering", at least partially.

I kind of thought that Zelensky's hard stance against Russia rather than playing fool to catch wise could've added to the tension.

But with time I came to the conclusion that I was wrong. Plain and simple. I was naive.

This whole military action and Russian agenda has absolutely nothing to do with Russian's security (which is forever secured by a minimal investment in nuclear weapons to be honest, nothing can save anyone from them), Nato, and not even imperialistic ambitions by Putin. Even those are honestly idiotic. If Putin really has had such imperialistic ambitions he would've acted on them earlier.

Reality is that this is all about Putin's autocracy. Putin knows that Russians consider themselves and Ukrainians the same people, so even if he could and can sleep just fine with Finland or Sweden joining NATO, as this poses no threat to his regime nor Russia, he cannot sleep well knowing that his citizens can look at Ukraine and see that a really democratic government, one that fights corruption and works for its citizens is possible. Because the instant message for Russians is that an alternative to Putin's autocracy is possible and he's scared shitless of that.

He was burning classified documents in Berlin in the very same moment that people were bringing down the Berlin wall, he was a KGB officer there. He knows that change to autocratic regimes can come at any time and that this leaves people like him ousted, at the very least. He's scared shitless of "real" democracy.

It's incredible world is heading into global recessions, thousands are dying, tensions are rising, I'm paying more than 4 times the energy bills I paid just 18 months ago, all because this shithead wants to transform Russia in a tsardom again.

It's terrible, awful.

We all need to do our best and push our legislators to help Ukraine as much as possible.

Arm them, train them, send all the money we can, sanction any country doing business with them, whatever we can so we can make Russian population suffer as much as possible, at the end of the day, Russians aren't stupid, they overthrew not one but two regimes that looked impossible to overthrow (the Tsar first and the Soviet Union second), they can understand the world around them and they're aware that most of what they hear in their tv is straight propaganda.

I am honestly sorry for not emphasizing enough with Ukraine. I did donate 200 euros to Ukraine in recent days and I plan to donate 2% of my monthly income for the foreseeable future at each check I receive.

If Putin wins, it's not just Russia winning and Ukraine losing, Europe isn't threatened by Putin's army, they can barely fight against Ukraine, but if Putin wins this is a very huge setback for democracy globally, for our own life styles and dignity.

29

VirginiaMcCaskey t1_jacjc7o wrote

The NATO narrative has always been nonsense. Former Soviet bloc countries have joined NATO solely because they cannot trust Russia to respect their sovereignty.

What better way to convince them that they were right than violating the sovereignty of a neighbor and invading them?

Fwiw - Russia has engaged in violent expansion during Putin's regime, and most analysts agree that reclaiming the glory of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire is a part of his agenda. Of course you can't divorce that from maintaining control, but war is also a terrible way to do that.

14

Couple_Overall t1_jadqnlf wrote

>Fwiw - Russia
>
>has
>
>engaged in violent expansion during Putin's regime, and most analysts agree that reclaiming the glory of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire is a part of his agenda

Evidence does not support it though. Always ask yourself "why now?". What's different in February 2022 than one, two, three or 12 months before?

If that was the Russian goal, then Russia had an infinite amount of opportunities before February 2022. Entirety of Ukraine was free to grab for Russia in 2014 or in the following years, he didn't move.

If he had it planned before he would've ordered the army to get prepared to such an occurrence. But that didn't happen and Russian army itself was not prepared and informed about these plans.

The reason why it happened then was prompted by Kazakhstan protests, Putin merely waited the olympics to end as a favor to China.

Putin's goal (which he never hid by the way), was first and foremost beheading the Ukrainian leadership and placing a puppet regime there which is why the attack spearheaded and concentrated on Kiev, land grabbing was of second importance.

2

SomeBoxofSpoons t1_jad7asb wrote

It would probably be a bit easier to believe it if Putin hadn’t been transparently drooling over Ukraine for more than a decade.

1

RogerRoger2310 t1_jadbgm1 wrote

You can go further with this. He didn't plan for the war, he wanted a quick land grab like with Crimea, in order to push his popularity up and prolong his rule. Second reason was like you said, people shouldn't get any ideas about having human rights or such so gotta keep them in line over the entire post-USSR territory. He got fed misinformation and failed hard, hence the war.

>Russians aren't stupid, they overthrew not one but two regimes that looked impossible to overthrow (the Tsar first and the Soviet Union second)

And both were very lucky circumstances + a failed war effort. Such circumstances have not yet formed. Gotta arrange them first.

6

extra2002 t1_jacf32d wrote

What this is (perhaps) really about: Russia has been depending on oil and gas exports to run its economy. Gas was discovered under eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Russia needs to get control of that gas to prevent its economy from being undermined.

−2

Couple_Overall t1_jacfsl3 wrote

No, this is bullshit.

Go check on Wikipedia how much gas Ukraine has. Even at best estimates if they exported it to Europe it would last for merely 12 months. If they only used it at home it would still deplete in less than 30 years. Their oil would last globally for a single day of use. It's really not much. Even if your theory had any basis (it doesn't) those discoveries happened 5 years ago, not in January/February 2022.

This has nothing to do with economy or security, it's all about fighting the spread of democracy in neighbouring countries, tightening his control over Russians and banning oppositions. Hell, Russia did much more damage to their economy which will last for decades than the tiny drop of Ukrainian gas or oil could do (even admitting Ukraine invested enough to extract it and prices where worth the investment).

By the way that's not my opinion but of former US Ambassador to Russia (and now Stanford professor McFaul) who knows Putin from more than 30 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbzf0ix2G5I

−3

Kaionacho t1_jacbv4v wrote

No shit, sherlock. Didn't NATO tell you to get out of that city like 2 weeks ago? How come you clearly haven't done so yet?

In a few days all roads out of the city will be captured by RU, you dont have much time.

−1

Zpik3 t1_jacmab6 wrote

Same thing qas said months ago. Just FYI.

!remindme 1 month.

1

[deleted] t1_jaar20w wrote

[removed]

−16

jimflaigle t1_jaarit5 wrote

Wow, you didn't even bother to differentiate your account names Russian Bot 1 and Russian Bot 2.

26

[deleted] t1_jaaqmpq wrote

[removed]

−18

jimflaigle t1_jaariog wrote

Wow, you didn't even bother to differentiate your account names Russian Bot 1 and Russian Bot 2.

27

PretendRequirement15 t1_jaastna wrote

Ya, time to put those poor Russians out of their misery. It's the least the west can do.

10

Griffindorwins t1_jaarg21 wrote

Nah, keep going. Grind Russia down as long as you can, otherwise all his people will suffer far more than they are already.

19

yoobroo12 t1_jabtgud wrote

If Zelensky saying this, it must be really close to take all of lost land back. He is one of the greatest leader and smartest mind of our time. We should hear some good news soon.

−46

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaavycw wrote

It really is time for NATO to seriously get involved. We need to send Putin straight to hell.

−55

Profrog888 t1_jabfjo3 wrote

im so glad that the world leaders are smarter than most of redditors that advocate for nato strikes on russia

105

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jab4ium wrote

That is exactly what the Botox Dwarf wants, a defeat by NATOs hand.

18

SnakeBiter409 t1_jabbjjc wrote

Then why not cut to the chase?

6

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jabjhd7 wrote

Because he needs the west to be the initiator (ie directly intervene). He is trying his best to shift the narrative as such, but it isn't succeeding. A defeat by Ukrainians alone, with western assistance of course, would be a complete disaster for a regime that has been for almost a decade planning its ethnocide.

13

SnakeBiter409 t1_jacrph1 wrote

What defines a defeat for Putin?

0

Brilliant-Rooster762 t1_jacs9et wrote

Being Ghaddafied. Nothing less. He will sink Russia alongside himself. And the Russian people are at fault for having fallen for a snake oil salesman promising them Empirical delusions.

We are seeing the end of Russia as a state. It's over.

3

SnakeBiter409 t1_jae5oae wrote

I think when the Soviet Union fell and became the Russian federation should be testament that Russia will always be Russia regardless of any Balkanization, but there will be more Ukraines and there will always be a threat of invasion.

0

70ms t1_jabmcl2 wrote

That's not how NATO works. It is a strictly defensive alliance, and Ukraine's not a member. I would love to see Russia stomped too but it won't be NATO unless Russia attacks a member state.

16

djinniofthelamp t1_jabplv2 wrote

Tell that to Serbia. NATO is only "strictly defensive" when it suits.

17

-RaptorX72- t1_jabtvsj wrote

Serbia was not a nuclear power.

5

OppenheimersGuilt t1_jac3qt6 wrote

Keeping an organization from being liars and aggressive by sheer threat of nuclear attack is not a point in favor of that organization...

3

jeeepblack t1_jacpef1 wrote

You are scared of replies that are negative about Russia. That is weak on your behalf.

1

djinniofthelamp t1_jad4cx0 wrote

I'm not arguing whether or not NATO should do something, I'm just saying that using "defensive only" as a reason is invalid

1

ArBui t1_jac4zw5 wrote

Okay, wish granted. Everyone unleashes their nuclear weapons and we all die.

Would you like to simulate another game?

12

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaeaxnq wrote

Your foolishness is exactly what Putin is banking on. He isn’t going to launch shit. How many more countries will we allow him to destroy over fear of his launching threats? Sooner or later, you will need to overcome your fear.

−5

ArBui t1_jaeczs3 wrote

I tentatively agree but obviously it's worrying. There's no real good options tbh other than, he grinds himself down and Russia has to take the L, and it's all resolved going forward especially after he's dead.

4

Law-of-Poe t1_jaawk1r wrote

I bet it’d fuck Putin right up if NATO started conducting strikes in Ukraine.

Wouldn’t be threatening an inch of Russian territories or a single Russian citizen. More than we could say for what Russia is doing to Ukraine and innocent Ukrainian civilians

10

dve- t1_jablml9 wrote

The point is: they think and at least say that they ARE in Russian territory.

Even if the rest of the world says otherwise, who knows if they might act accordingly if we strike.

3

BRXF1 t1_jabz8ki wrote

Yeah that's pretty much a declaration of war and NATO will not go for starting a Russia-NATO war.

2

Airtightspoon t1_jabek9h wrote

We're not starting WW3 for a country that we aren't even obligated to defend.

10

simonp101 t1_jabgoe2 wrote

>time for NATO to seriously get involved

You mean with troops on the ground? that's the last thing the World needs, a nuclear war with grave consequences for the entire planet.

NATO is already involved militarily. Just the US contribution alone all aid pledged so far exceeds $110 billion, and according to Summit News and ZeroHedge "US Military Aid To Ukraine Exceeds The Costs Of Afghanistan".

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabuyr8 wrote

The us spent over 2 trillion on Afghanistan so that number is either wrong or comparing something else. My guess is it’s dividing by years (2 trillion/20=100 billion).

4

simonp101 t1_jabwpdf wrote

> 2 trillion on Afghanistan

It's only talking about US military spent amount, which is a portion to what you're referring to. $46.6 billion in Ukraine vs $43.4 billion in Afghanistan.

3

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabxuid wrote

Can you link? Just curious.

1

simonp101 t1_jac1d1u wrote

>Can you link?

I'll try: https://summit.news/2023/02/25/us-military-aid-to-ukraine-exceeds-the-costs-of-afghanistan/

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jac1qxn wrote

Ah as I suspect it’s average annual cost. But that’s to be expected: the us was fighting the taliban in Afghanistan, whereas for Ukraine the us is supplying them to fight a modern (ish) military of a nation state. The Taliban didn’t even have planes.

2

thederpofwar321 t1_jabwfld wrote

It could count weapons meant to be turned to junk, but got donated.

1

SleepyNervousBoi t1_jabww6r wrote

Yeah, it could. I’ve heard (from Perun) how misleading figures of military aid can be. Basically, many countries report what the price of what they’re donating would be new, others what it will cost to replace the equipment (ie inflating it), whereas others report what it actually sells for in used condition.

2

ktchong t1_jabb92a wrote

So, let's start World War III... for Ukraine?

So, is that the hill that humanity is gonna die on? Let's risk apocalypse and extinction for... Ukraine. Really??

−6

whatamidoing84 t1_jabk1z7 wrote

Nuclear war would be bad for Ukrainians as well as the rest of the world. Assuming you are referring to troops on the ground?

−6

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaebagn wrote

So I guess we continue to allow Putin to destroy countries. All because he threatens to launch.

1

whatamidoing84 t1_jaej376 wrote

Those aren’t the only two options, you know. I know discussion over the internet is hard and it’s easy to want to demonize the anonymous person you are speaking with, but damn. I support Ukraine but US boots on the ground means direct military conflict with Russia, which means nuclear weapons are on the table. I don’t see that resulting in a positive outcome for anyone.

Unless you have some reason you don’t think we have any reason to fear the use of nukes? Putin doesn’t strike me a particularly rational actor.

1

Vader_Von_Vader t1_jaepez0 wrote

Because Putin doesn’t want to die either. It is called ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ and has worked for 50 years.

Where do you draw the line? How many countries are you willing to hand over to Putin?

At some point even the biggest pacifist has a line.

1

Alarming-Affect-881 t1_jabs8ud wrote

In the words of Tommy Shelby, big fucks small. Ukraine will get fucked sooner or later

−94