this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
630 points (93.2% liked)
World News
32352 readers
412 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imagine linking kyivpost as if it's a credible source. Might as well link an article from Weekly World News next.
edit: I love how downvotes immediately come in when you point out the obvious, as long as the article says what people want to hear they all of a sudden stop caring about credible sources
What part of this is incorrect?
The Kyiv Post is quoting Alexander Sergeevich Khodakovsky from his telegram channel, the Russian commander of the pro-Russian Vostok Battalion. He was involved in the uprising in Donetsk back in 2014 and continues to this day to be involved in the Ukrainian war.
https://t.me/s/aleksandr_skif?before=2851
In this case, they are quoting a primary source. So irrespective of your opinion of their journalistic integrity, this appears to be factual information.
Here's another source from Reuters that discusses the Ukrainian Marines retaking Urozhaine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-recaptures-urozhaine-donetsk-region-russian-forces-2023-08-16/
This is a typical poisoning the well ad hominem.
If you're curious, this is the full telegram translation from DeepL:
Can we militarily bring down Ukraine? Right now and in the short term, no. When I reason in myself about our victory in this war - I don't mean that we will crawl forward like them, turning everything into bahmuts on our way. And I don't envision the easy occupation of cities.... We will enter the phase that is most disadvantageous for Ukraine in its "self-styled" state: the phase of neither peace nor war. We could be in this phase if, instead of the SWO, we recognized the territories and officially took them under guardianship. But that would be a completely different turn of history....
In our reality, which has already taken place, it will come to a "truce". We have started certain processes in the economy, caused by the increased load, but in general we have endured and caught the balance. We are balancing - not without that - but we are walking on a tightrope. Remember the crisis of the eighth year, which was called the crisis of the banking system? Back then, just one bank collapsed, setting off the domino principle, and we experienced a lot of bad things in a fairly short period of time. Now there is systematic pressure, but we are warming up, but we are holding on.
It will not be the same with Ukraine. If we don't let the internal situation in Russia to rock, we have a very high survivability with all our ailments. Ukraine is a completely different "physics". Economically and politically, it is a construct that cannot survive on its own. That is why the project of independent Ukraine was not realized and turned into a project of "who to lie under". Unfortunately, the elites oriented to Western money defeated the elites who wanted to milk Russia. Now the West gives mostly what can only bring destruction. When you read about the next aid, what you see is not money that you can saw, but iron that you have to dispose of. You can't make much money from it. Therefore, at the end of the upcoming phase, we will most likely face a global redivision of Ukraine. Translated with DeepL https://www.deepl.com/app/?utm_source=android&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=share-translation
Seems as though he's saying basically what most Hexbears are saying: that Ukraine is unstable, and without Western support it will fall. All Russia needs to do is hold out until the West gets bored or pivots to Taiwan, which is easier said than done, admittedly, but is possible.
I do not see much evidence that Ukraine will just shatter the second it stops getting western support, though. Of course they'll be disadvantaged, but it's not like they're the ANA, is it? I wrote here about it a bit so I wont bother repeating the comment just to save us both some time lol.
Russia can gain more advantage by waiting things out but even if the west stopped supporting it they still have no route forward to 'total victory' as the Russian leadership imagined (quick and easy replacement of the Ukrainian government with one friendly to Russia and beholden entirely to it), just a slightly more advantageous occupation of some parts of the country. Ukrainians wont just give up though, taking big cities is an immensely difficult thing against a dedicated defender and the further in they get, the more difficult it is to defend supply lines.
It's based on the US being in it only half-heartedly. Frankly speaking the US withdrawing from the conflict could end it because Russia will stop once it sees that Europe doubles down (after a moment of shock and denial about us being US puppets etc), but so would America actually committing.
Where are the damn ATACMS, America? Guarantees of delivering Abrams for years on end no-matter-what?
"We could have won if we tried harder" is U.S. cope from Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Afghanistan...
I'm not American. And no the American cope is "We won Vietnam because we had a higher kill count".
I'm German. And yes we won WWII because we got rid of the Nazis.
Both flavors of cope abound regarding Vietnam. I didn't mean to imply I assumed you were American; I'm just pointing out that "if we really took the gloves off they wouldn't stand a chance" is (1) false, (2) a way the public gets sold on the next war, and (3) a silly thing to say when whatever "gloves off" scenario one imagines isn't going to happen.
You Germans didn't get rid of the nazis, you were the nazis
My family tree very much would like to disagree.
And in any case it's irrelevant as liberation from the Nazis, indeed, was a liberation. How can you lose when that happens. You know who's pissed that "we lost the war"? Actual Nazis.
So when are you going to Ukraine to sign up for the frontline?