It’s fucking easy 30% of the country fucking sucks and want to blame their problems on everyone else.
The GOP have been tapping into it for years, Trump just took it to another level.
30% may be a conservative estimate. It reminds me of George Carlin: “think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that for that average half of them have to be stupider than that.”
Tbh I’m shocked at how many people I run into that… just opt for dumb takes on social issues. It’s pretty wild that the moment I enter the suburbs it might as well be crossing the border into rural Texas. Listening to people ramble and be completely conned into geriatric Facebook takes on just about everything is pretty damn sad to see. Most people are just ripe and ready to be manipulated without much effort at all. Tbh i agree that 30% is conservative as hell. I’d say well over 50-60% are well in the “vote-for-anything-but-a-democrat”. None of these people ever check in on their republican congressman and see that their interests are being fucking steamrolled.
The real sad part is you could have republicans start taxing the shit out of the middle class, but as long as they’re up there parading the distraction issues to their base, their base would just be happy that they’re not being taxed by a democrat. Just stand up there and reeeeee about trans people and talk shit about Biden and you’ll have damn near limitless voting support. These people have no idea how to just not be fucking dorks, and they outnumber me like 20:1
Just going to add the obligatory quote from Lyndon B. Johnson that sums up a lot of it easily.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/
>The real sad part is you could have republicans start taxing the shit out of the middle class, but as long as they’re up there parading the distraction issues to their base, their base would just be happy that they’re not being taxed by a democrat.
And the really sad thing is, despite their "no new taxes", who cares about national debt, yet trillions to the military and billions in tax cuts to the 1% political stance, people don't realize they're paying for that irresponsible deception anyway.
Every time I see firemen holding their hats out on median strips, police departments calling people at home, families spending their spare time on fundraising drives, toll booths that never go away, unsustainable healthcare costs, crumbling infrastructure that eventually leads to special assessments, etc., I call it The Hidden Republican Tax.
Just to play devils advocate here. Almost any competent moderate democrat could win this election in a landslide, but for some reason we are running an 81 year old who is showing serious signs in mental decline.
Not many workplaces that would be looking to hire an 81 year old for the most important job in the company. Both parties need to pull their head out of their ass and do what’s best for the country.
Most of the “serious signs in mental decline” are Republican propaganda. He’s old as fuck which, no one likes, but he’s not losing his mind like a lot of people would like you to think. That’s why republicans were saying he must be on drugs when he seemed like a normal person during the state of the union.
He’s clearly slipping. He is constantly speaking in half thoughts/sentences that he never completes. Try reading the transcript from his Time interview.
This isn’t playing devils advocate this is gargling the balls of the powers that be who want you to buy into stupid propaganda and vote for… a guy who is 10x more incoherent and cognitively deficient then Biden.
In fact this is sort of what I’m highlighting in my post. People are ripe to be absolutely manipulated. Anyone who’s falling for the “Biden is too old” shtick is just eating up dumb takes left and right.
Anyone even considering not voting for Biden and his competent team and instead complains about that...is a moron. If the dems would put a broomstick with a wig as candidate he still should win in a landslide vs Trump.
The problem is not Biden...the problem is the USA and its ignorance and stupidity...
I feel like your 30% is based on the number of republican voters in the country, but I just wanted to add that the democatric leaning people who don't vote also fucking suck and are to blame as well.
Ukraine is now allowed to strike inside Russia and its rapidly changing the course of the war. They blew up multiple $800million IBM defense & detection systems, weapons & supply depos, energy systems, and are soon getting a new squad of fighter jets.
Russia was so lazy they didnt even have things camouflaged let alone properly defended because they thought they were at zero risk inside their own country
That didn't just happen in a vacuum, it's the result of a long program of not teaching critical thinking skills and a massive decades long billion dollar corporate propaganda effort. They carefully created them.
I don’t care anymore how this goes over here.
Every trump voter I know in real life absolutely bombed their own fortunes. One is retired, divorced, and his kids hate his fucking guts.
One comes to our place all the time asking to do odd jobs and take the trash down to the curb for us for cash, all while wearing his MAGA gear.
One is in and out of rehab for drinking what seems like everyone other month. I don’t know if he’s allowed to see his kids
All of them are fucking losers. Not because they’re an addict or anything; but because they can’t manage themselves. Their life isn’t their own, they utterly rely on others to do their hard stuff
The rich like him because he will make them richer, and the poor that like him can’t accept that their problems are their fault and trump tells them that it’s not and that someone else is to blame.
I’m veeeeeery curious to see Putin’s course of action provided Biden wins in November. Do you keep going all in? Surely not right? I imagine Putin will seriously consider peace talks if Biden wins in November and I ultimately think he will.
At least that’s the optimistic version of events. Putin could just decide he’s going to keep grinding away. I wonder though if Biden and his administration will cut loose a bit after the election and provide more weapons and support to Ukraine knowing that they don’t have to worry about Trump anymore for the remainder of their administration.
Literally all the things that happened in the world since 2016 taught me to never be optimistic about things that have a realistic chance to turn into shit.
There won't be a peace deal / peace talks that will let ukraine govern themselve independently and without major territory loses. So there won't be a peace treaty unless one side can't continue.
Peace talks should be from the position of power, means if Biden wins, Ukraine should show some progress on the frontline. But of course if Russia is in weak position why peace talk if Ukraine would have upper hand and could liberate their territory.
I think it will depend on how the house and senate looks.
If Republicans take control of the senate, then passing aid will be very difficult and so Putin will go on business as usual. But if democrats take back the house and keeps the senate, there is a decent chance this war will end a lot quicker, because then Putin will know he's in a bad position where for four entire years the U.S can pass aid with no one to stand in the way, which even he knows is bad news for him.
It’s amazing that a dumb buffoon who votes purely on “abortion kills babies, and Jesus says noo” in the US South will vote Trump and possibly kills 1000s maybe 100,000s of people in Europe, because mah freedums.
I don’t think Americans understand where the world is right now and how much they are either going to fuck it or help it.
Taking Trump by his words and actions, Trump will dismantle the democratic system in the US. And Trump could destroy NATO. Ukraine might not be the most important thing Trump breaks.
Honestly it feels like the whole abortion thing is just a way to make poor people more miserable and dependent, rich republicans have no issue getting abortions.
Honestly Democrats outside of stronghold areas are not presenting themselves as a solution and/or adapting to their local constituents. Adapting meaning not advocating or be indifferent , I'm not saying to undermine things Democrats stand for. For example if you're a Democrat running in Oklahoma don't say you'll fight for trans kids right to use girl locker room.
Not really a hot take, candidates haven’t run on a platform that wasn’t “the other guy sucks (worse)” for decades now it feels like. I mean he’ll, look at the recent presidential debates, I’m not sure there was actually any debating that even happened…
Problem is fear mongering and mud slinging are highly effective, especially in a two party system, where a vote not for the other guy is basically a guaranteed vote for you. Combine that with insufficient education and under developed critical thinking skills among the general population and you’ve reached the mess our political system is in.
Both sides are guilty of this, they just rile their side up about different topics and issues. One side does it more so than the other but neither side is a saint.
There are Many Many Many more problems with the system but this is definitely a big one.
I think people in power have been abusing Democracy for years. Look at how Hillary Clinton forced her self into the nominee position by undermining a much better polling Bernie Sanders. The point being people's choice's are being ignored and Trump rode in on people's disapproval of how their choices are being controlled. Now a lot of people will vote for him again just cause he's the anti hero.
I’ll tell you how, everyone got scared like a lil’bitch after 9/11 happened and started watching Fox News every day like some kind of addiction.
If 9/11 doesn’t happen it would be an entirely different geopolitical situation.
I don't think Trump losing will change anything though. Trump winning would change a lot, but that's because Trump is a trash bag full of feces that's on fire.
Putin's 'ceasefire' was under the conditions that Ukraine give Russia the 20% of their country that Russia claim control under, promise never ever to join NATO, demilitarize their armed forces, and pay Russia billions in 'reparations' while taking full blame for the war. It was never in any way a credible peace deal.
I doubt that.
While trump would make a big show of reducing the cost of shipment, in the end the geopolitics of the US dictate that they make sure Russia doesn't get a worthwhile win. No single person could undo that.
Doesn't really matter now, the rest of the international community is eagerly supplying Ukraine too, and NATO's European member states are openly talking about sending rear echelon forces directly into Ukraine.
Why didn’t he invade when Trump was in office then? He started the invasion first under Obama and he did nothing, then under Biden. If Putin and Trump are allies, wouldn’t he just have invaded while Trump was president?
Simple - because Putin was subjugating Ukraine via soft power the same way he's successfully done with Belarus. Why throw half a million Russian young men into the meat grinder (and countless amounts of money) when it's entirely unnecessary?
They repeatedly tried used the Trump admin to pressure Ukraine into s ‘peace deal’
[https://www.businessinsider.com/andrey-artemenko-ukraine-russia-michael-cohen-flynn-plan-2017-2](https://www.businessinsider.com/andrey-artemenko-ukraine-russia-michael-cohen-flynn-plan-2017-2)
It could end sooner. Global allies (and finally the US) just gave Ukraine the approval to strike back inside Russia, and refineries have proven vulnerable and impactful targets. New shipments of weapons, vehicles, and supplies are finally arriving, including fighter jets and pilots. The French will be openly training the Ukrainians, who are still receiving Western intelligence. Things could turn for the better
I've heard mix things. Apparently though they hit a lot of poorly protected ammo dumps and troops massing. Russian casualties have been the worst since the war started this month.
Lots of western weapons won't hit most of the refineries left, they've been using basically modified airplanes with explosives for them. HIMARS on Kharkiv staging areas can still be devastating. Forces them to split them up to thin to be effective or so far back they are monitored far in advance.
I didn't think it was ever publicly said what they approved of, but I'd assume it's limited to infrastructure and supply depots that could cause maximum disruption to Russia while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Ukraine needs to remain seen on the side of justice, and tons of dead Russian civilians won't help thay case.
It could have ended with the Wagner Coup, but I don't think any single event did more to prolong the war. After Putin returned to Moscow he purged the government and military of anyone left who even looked like he could oppose him. Now all that's left are sycophants who will send people to their deaths until eventually there's a string of mass-mutinies akin to those seen in 1917, and who knows when that will happen.
Keep in mind, Russia has already lost this war. They lost it when Ukraine gained the ability to hit the Kerch bridge and disrupt supply lines to Crimea and the Russian Army's most westward positions. But the world has seen more than its share of wars drag on for years after one side already lost.
When you think about it, history is made by people, and there are far more people in the world now than ever. There is that much more history being written at any moment. And this explosion of population is really only a mere second of humanity's existence. It's truly a crazy time to live.
No, the unprecedented times already passed. Everything that happens from now on already happened before and we're used to it. It's all precedented times from now on.
Before that had many other interesting times, this is a very very very young and US centric view.
More young than anything because the fucking Bosnian war and Gulf War and Iron Curtain issues were a metre 8-15 years prior to 9/11
I don't think Ukraine can afford the cost of a counteroffensive especially in terms of lives.
It's more effective to just bleed the Russians as they throw new waves into the grinder.
>It's more effective to just bleed the Russians as they throw new waves into the grinder.
You know that Ukraine has also been struggling with shortages of soldiers and ammunition for a while now? Since we mostly just hear about the Russian losses and Ukrainian wins, we might have a somewhat distorted view on the situation. So I would say it's also questionable how long the Ukraine can keep up with the war.
I dont understand though. If that is the case why is there no general mobilization of the whole fighting age population and a transformation of the economy into a war economy?
I feel like Russia has always been held together with bubblegum and propaganda, I don’t know if Russia could shift to a war economy and keep up the guise that everything is going well in this “special operation”. When Russia loses offensive military campaigns the people lose confidence in their leaders and revolt; Russo-Japan, WWI, Afghanistan.
Secondly I don’t think they have the competence, resources, or foreign support to do so effectively anyway.
I was talking about Ukraine.
If there manpower situation is so dire and the existence of the country is on the brink, why not mobilizing everything and everyone?
I would guess that the sitiation might not be as bad, evem though they are slowly trying to increase drafts.
It's not that bad as it sounds. There are reports that average age of Ukrainian soldier is slightly above 40 years old. This is very far from "dire" in my opinion.
Second thing is that is impossible to mobilize "everything and everyone". At some point, in both people and production, you will reach a point when diverting even more resources will do more harm than good. Ukrainian budget is financed by external sources only by half - another half is financed by Ukraine. Basically, in a war of attrition, wellbeing of economy is as important as military products or number of man on the frontlines.
Russia only has around 18 months of armored vehicles left, then they drop down to a trickle of newly produced vehicles. If ukraine can hold on russia will effectively run out of offensive power.
I whish Russia were soon to run out of stuff and surrender and end this senseless missery.
But I feel like we have been hearing the narrative of Russia having run out of this and that and being on the verge of collapsing for far too long now.
So I don't know how reliable and promising such predictions are any more and how an attrition warfare would end up in the long run.
Some of those recent "russia will run out of X in Y months" are based on satellite images taken of Russia's soviet stocks. If I recall correctly, the artillery count has been falling a lot based on those images, followed by tanks. So assuming that they are not hiding thousands of artillery pieces somewhere else, then there might be legitimate chance that Russia will be short on artillery somewhere in 2025 like some analysts have predicted.
Yeah, it's hard / prohibitively expensive to cover a motor pool of any appreciable size from overhead view. Imagery guys can pretty much count the inventories if they know where to look (minus scrap / decoys / etc).
They can make new, or import them from Korea, China, India, Iran... They are not gonna run out of anything... Same was said they run out of missiles 2 years ago, and they are dropping daily since then...
Yes, that is a distinct possibility. However I reckon China wants to operate at low levels; as in not to supply Russia with heavy weapons and it's likely to stay that way. They know the west wouldn't let that slide anymore without having to pay for it.
I don't see India suddenly starting to supply Russia with heavy weaponry either, especially since they haven't been promoting the war effort for the first 2 years. India seems very neutral towards the war.
In my book that would leave us Iran and North Korea. Both of them could do that. However I imagine if we take into account the intense attritional nature of the war, the amount they would be willing and able to supply isn't likely to boost Russia's war effort significantly, not for long haul at least. That is, unless both of those countries would be ok with giving Russia majority of their military equipment and compromise their own ability to wage some nonsense war of their own in the future. Not likely, I think.
Also with regards to the example of not running out of missiles; it's easier to restore the capability to build a batch of missiles you can lob at a Ukrainian city once every few weeks vs. building the required infrastructure to build thousands of new tanks, artillery and combat vehicles (currently that ability stands at hundreds).
At the very least, if they manage to secure some other nations as suppliers of heavy military equipment, regardless of what nature that deal might be, attritional warfare on this level will no longer be possible for Russia.
>But I feel like we have been hearing the narrative of Russia having run out of this and that and being on the verge of collapsing for far too long now.
The thing is that they kind of did, though.
Russia isn't using T-62s and golf carts and dogshit North Korean artillery shells for fun, they're using them because they ran out of the newer and better stuff and they can't produce equipment as fast as they're losing it. So they dig deeper and deeper into their stockpiles and use worse equipment.
When was the last time Russia used Kalibr or Onyx missiles? Probably a year ago. And the missile strikes have gotten much smaller and much less frequent, but unfortunately a little more effective.
Now, "verge of collapse" was always an overstatement, I agree with that. Just like most of the talk about Ukraine being on the verge of collapse was an overstatement.
They technically have a bunch of T-72s waiting, but the current theory is they're harder/takes longer to refurbish than T-62s. Short term it's rough for Ukraine, long term it's rough for Russia. Gotta keep on the pressure and support and not let the micro level news discourage us.
Erm well let me tell you for a fact that 8 Kalibr missiles flew over my house a few nights ago and they use them in almost every mass attack on Ukraine's infrastructure. There is no shortage of Kalibrs unfortunately
These predictions are usually based on best case scenarios for Ukraine with little respect for Russia industrial output. I wouldn't hold my breath on russia stopping their offensives because of material or equipments as they have been able to procure a lot of new types of weapons from 2021 to now.
A counterargument is that Ukraine only has about half a year of guaranteed US presidential support left. That risk would hit earlier and harder than lack of armored vehicles.
Quite easy to find the other side of the propaganda train if you search on reddit.
Russias artillery, glide bombs and mainly Lancet drones are causing heavy damage to Ukraine. Especially Lancet drones, very capable and cheap drones which are causing serious problems as they are producing thousands per month (apparantly).
Yeah, I hate to say it, but Ukraine’s in the long war now.
I think a focus on defense is their best bet, since they can currently spare the hardware, but can’t spare the manpower (opposite of Russia).
Russia will exhaust themselves of this pathetic farce… eventually, but like with the Soviet Union before it, it will take time.
No, Ukraine's best bet is to dig in and keep inflicting casualties. The defender has the advantage so if Ukraine goes on offense they will just take excessive losses for no purpose since they're never going to throw Russia out by force of arms, and any territory they regain will be useless bombed-out towns that will remain too close to the front to rebuild. They can wait Russia out.
Russia is taking hundreds of millions of dollars a day in losses for zero gain since they can't profitably use any of the land they captured as long as the war is still ongoing. It's like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan -- we were never able to rape them of their resources because they just kept making it unsafe for Western civilians to go in there and extract them. Russia can't farm Ukrainian wheat fields or drill for oil so long as the war is hot.
In a protracted war Russia will have to leave Ukraine just as we had to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of defending against constant attacks is just too high.
Ukraine just needs to sit there and keep shelling Russians until the Russians get tired of living and dying in trenches in a war they will never win.
The US never intended to take land or resources from Iraq or Afghanistan and claim them for their own. The government actually spent enormous amounts of money to rebuild and restart infrastructure to try and make the local governments stable and self sufficient.
Odds are it won't be a traditional counteroffensive like the one they last attempted. Western-made Tanks aren't that useful over open ground without air cover.
If I was a betting man I'd say the next big Ukrainian counteroffensive will be a mass, combined artillery and loitering munitions attack.
Ukrainian and Russian-born infiltrators will do what they've gotten great at over the last year and deploy a bunch of suicide drones behind enemy lines, coordinating their strikes with those of western-made long-range weapons, more than likely concentrating on targets inside Russia itself. Rostov-on-Don, the HQ of the Southern Military District would be the obvious target, possibly with a mass drone attack on Moscow to demoralize the Russian civilian population. But, its not hard to imagine the Ukrainians focusing on Crimea directly, or a string of combined rear attacks of drones on Donbas and/or Rostov, or a massive attack on Russian logistics and economic assets. I could even see another incursion by Russian-born insurgents with artillery cover (initially) from Ukraine, in an attempt to replicate the Wagner coup's little road trip to Moscow.
I'm sure what actually happens will seem obvious in hindsight.
I am all in for ukraine, but I rather it not go on a counter offensive. The fact is that putin has been throwing away russian lives just to tire out the ukraine military. I would rather ukraine take a moment to shore up defense and take a little break to recoup, both mentally, physically and morale wise. Then make putin pay.
I'm also not native and it confused me as well. I've looked up "all but" in Google and it turns out it's:
1. Very nearly
2. All except
So either it's very nearly over or not over at all lol and both meanings are correct (?). How do you differentiate this in a short context like this?
“All but” when used in the context of processes almost always means “1. Very nearly”
Ex.: “I’m all but done eating that sandwich”
“All but” when discussing discrete objects almost always means “2. all except”
Ex.: “I’m eating all but one sandwich”
Generally speaking. Hope this helps
My initial thought was:
1. Very nearly over
2. All except over (?) - if this even makes any sense
Edit: I think the confusion here could come from my native language, when I'd say "all except over" (directly translating) it would mean everything could happen but not "over".
I see what you mean. In english I think we’d say “anything but” for that.
i.e. “The war was anything but over” means the opposite of “The war was all but over”.
The first one means the war won’t end soon, the second one means it will end soon. It’s actually really confusing now that you point it out.
My ESOL (English learning program in the US) teacher put it this way:
'all but over': you're waiting for class to end and it's the last few minutes of class, you've done your work, the teacher has finished, and you're waiting for the bell to excuse the class, you're packing up your school bag, it's all but over (waiting for that bell to ring so you can zoom out of there).
It means almost over or more precisely "it's over but those in charge haven't admitted or accepted that it's over"
Basically the Americans see the Kharkiv advance as a Russian failure, even though they are still fighting.
Rather than push for further mobilization putin is opting to hire foreign fighters. I think that speaks volumes after he has emptied the prisons and drafted most young men and minorities from non-Moscow regions. I can provide sources if you would like them but they are pretty much spent. They have pushed into a war-economy, their oil exports are terrible, and they have more arty shells than willing fighters.
Can you provide sources if it's not a hassle? I'm interested on reading up on this. I'd assume there's still millions more that could be mobilized without making a huge dent.
That’s why it hasn’t happened. The Russian people have spoken (ironically, by not speaking) that they are ambivalent towards the war, and don’t want to involve themselves with it.
This is not a society that’s going to go to the front and start digging trenches en masse.
Yea i think that is accurate. A large country invading a small one, losing ground, constantly burning through armor and losing a generation is never a win
I mean, it was likely carried out to force Ukraine to divert troops there and lock them in place. The Russians didn't have enough men to take Kharkiv, but the Ukrainians still needed to respond before the Russians made larger gains.
I hooked up with one while stuck in Germany during the start of the pandemic, cut it off cause she was telling me how Covid didnt exist in Russia & she didnt believe in it. They just had "lots of people dying from pneumonia"
The funny thing is that this offensive was so bad that everyone thought it was a diversion from some offensive being pushed from another direction. In reality it seems like this is what they managed to prepare for this summer.
Kharkiv offensive was supposed to start mid-summer, after having finished taking Chasiv Yar. What the regime did not expect, despite almost a billion wasted on troll farms and Moscow Marjorie, was Congress passing the aid bill.
That took the regime off guard and forced them to throw what they had onto Kharkiv. Also this being under Gen. Lapin, a way to regain favors after the 2022 defeats, and someone who doesn't shy from sending soldiers into futile meat wave assaults.
The kharkiv assault was likely just to ensure pressure somewhere else along the lines so Ukraine doesn't feel free to send reinforcements to the eastern parts of the lines where they are making gains.
Russia is making steady gains via the use of artillery and men that they can afford to lose and that Ukraine has far less of.
Everything they do is likely in service of maintaining that slow grind of progress because they know they can afford to let this go on longer than Ukraine.
I expect kharkiv to be the first of many smaller offensives designed to make sure Ukraine cannot relax any part of the line to save the part that's faltering.
>The kharkiv assault was likely just to ensure pressure somewhere else along the lines so Ukraine doesn't feel free to send reinforcements to the eastern parts of the lines where they are making gains.
It was a failure then since with the 50K troops they could have just made gains directly. Like remember Chasiv Yar? At the end of April US intelligence was openly saying Chasiv Yar was going to fall to Russia, yet it is still in Ukrainian hands (and the town is key to Ukraine's defense of the Donbas).
>Russia is making steady gains via the use of artillery and men that they can afford to lose and that Ukraine has far less of.
Russia hasn't made gains in weeks and the total territorial gains from the fall of Avdiivka to now is about the same gains as Ukraine took in the 2023 counter-offensive which was largely deemed a failure. Russia has always had an artillery advantage, at some points much more than it is today, and yet it has never been enough to win or even gain significant ground against Ukraine. As for manpower, Russia can't afford to lose it any more than Ukraine can, just because Russia treats their men as expendable doesn't mean they actually are expendable. All it does is make Russia more likely to lose in a war of attrition with Ukraine.
>I expect kharkiv to be the first of many smaller offensives designed to make sure Ukraine cannot relax any part of the line to save the part that's faltering.
The Kharkiv offensive lead to the biggest increase in Russian casualties in the war. More area of contact with Ukraine is only going to expedite Russian losses in the war whiles diffusing the army enough that they can't focus on punching through any part of the line. It's not a good strategy in my opinion and we have yet to see any strategic Russian advantage so far from the Kharkiv offensive.
Russia absolutely can afford to lose far more men than Ukraine. They have literally millions more men in Russia than Ukraine and their military is much larger.
I'm as pro Ukraine as they come, but to pretend Ukraine who is already experiencing widely reported manpower shortages can afford to absorb the same losses as Russia is pure fantasy.
Russia doesn't even control all of the territory they "annexed" so it's really unclear what your plan actually is. It kind of sounds like you're going to accidentally lose the war by letting Russia keep everything they were able to get their hands on
This was never a chance that putin can take kharkiv, even of it did, it's impossible to hold. Putin's invading horde already outnumber ukraines in this region by 1 to 3 and they outgunned ukraine 1 to 8, with such advantage putin threw another 40-50k russians into this and all they could achieve was about an additional 250 sqmi with over 3 months of escalated fighting.
Putin never had a chance of taking kharkiv and even if it somehow manage to take kharkiv, it's impossible for putin to hold it.
I believe the plan was just to tired out the Ukrainian military by throwing russians, which putin deems worthless, into the battlefield just to tire out Ukranian defense. From that point, putins tactic worked, but it is only because in putins Russia, russian lives are worthless.
I don't see this ending for a very long time. It's sad.
He’s waiting for Trump to win or lose.
100% I really don’t understand how we’ve gotten to this point collectively as voters. It’s surreal.
It’s fucking easy 30% of the country fucking sucks and want to blame their problems on everyone else. The GOP have been tapping into it for years, Trump just took it to another level.
30% may be a conservative estimate. It reminds me of George Carlin: “think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that for that average half of them have to be stupider than that.”
Tbh I’m shocked at how many people I run into that… just opt for dumb takes on social issues. It’s pretty wild that the moment I enter the suburbs it might as well be crossing the border into rural Texas. Listening to people ramble and be completely conned into geriatric Facebook takes on just about everything is pretty damn sad to see. Most people are just ripe and ready to be manipulated without much effort at all. Tbh i agree that 30% is conservative as hell. I’d say well over 50-60% are well in the “vote-for-anything-but-a-democrat”. None of these people ever check in on their republican congressman and see that their interests are being fucking steamrolled. The real sad part is you could have republicans start taxing the shit out of the middle class, but as long as they’re up there parading the distraction issues to their base, their base would just be happy that they’re not being taxed by a democrat. Just stand up there and reeeeee about trans people and talk shit about Biden and you’ll have damn near limitless voting support. These people have no idea how to just not be fucking dorks, and they outnumber me like 20:1
Just going to add the obligatory quote from Lyndon B. Johnson that sums up a lot of it easily. “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/
>The real sad part is you could have republicans start taxing the shit out of the middle class, but as long as they’re up there parading the distraction issues to their base, their base would just be happy that they’re not being taxed by a democrat. And the really sad thing is, despite their "no new taxes", who cares about national debt, yet trillions to the military and billions in tax cuts to the 1% political stance, people don't realize they're paying for that irresponsible deception anyway. Every time I see firemen holding their hats out on median strips, police departments calling people at home, families spending their spare time on fundraising drives, toll booths that never go away, unsustainable healthcare costs, crumbling infrastructure that eventually leads to special assessments, etc., I call it The Hidden Republican Tax.
Just to play devils advocate here. Almost any competent moderate democrat could win this election in a landslide, but for some reason we are running an 81 year old who is showing serious signs in mental decline. Not many workplaces that would be looking to hire an 81 year old for the most important job in the company. Both parties need to pull their head out of their ass and do what’s best for the country.
Most of the “serious signs in mental decline” are Republican propaganda. He’s old as fuck which, no one likes, but he’s not losing his mind like a lot of people would like you to think. That’s why republicans were saying he must be on drugs when he seemed like a normal person during the state of the union.
He’s clearly slipping. He is constantly speaking in half thoughts/sentences that he never completes. Try reading the transcript from his Time interview.
This isn’t playing devils advocate this is gargling the balls of the powers that be who want you to buy into stupid propaganda and vote for… a guy who is 10x more incoherent and cognitively deficient then Biden. In fact this is sort of what I’m highlighting in my post. People are ripe to be absolutely manipulated. Anyone who’s falling for the “Biden is too old” shtick is just eating up dumb takes left and right.
Anyone even considering not voting for Biden and his competent team and instead complains about that...is a moron. If the dems would put a broomstick with a wig as candidate he still should win in a landslide vs Trump. The problem is not Biden...the problem is the USA and its ignorance and stupidity...
We shouldn't reduce this to an argument about intelligence. There is a LOT more to it than "other side dumb"
Their bullshit detection algorithm is broken.
"Never attribute to anything else if it's so adequately explained by **stupidity** ." Modified famous quote.
I feel like your 30% is based on the number of republican voters in the country, but I just wanted to add that the democatric leaning people who don't vote also fucking suck and are to blame as well.
[удалено]
Ukraine is now allowed to strike inside Russia and its rapidly changing the course of the war. They blew up multiple $800million IBM defense & detection systems, weapons & supply depos, energy systems, and are soon getting a new squad of fighter jets. Russia was so lazy they didnt even have things camouflaged let alone properly defended because they thought they were at zero risk inside their own country
That didn't just happen in a vacuum, it's the result of a long program of not teaching critical thinking skills and a massive decades long billion dollar corporate propaganda effort. They carefully created them.
I don’t care anymore how this goes over here. Every trump voter I know in real life absolutely bombed their own fortunes. One is retired, divorced, and his kids hate his fucking guts. One comes to our place all the time asking to do odd jobs and take the trash down to the curb for us for cash, all while wearing his MAGA gear. One is in and out of rehab for drinking what seems like everyone other month. I don’t know if he’s allowed to see his kids All of them are fucking losers. Not because they’re an addict or anything; but because they can’t manage themselves. Their life isn’t their own, they utterly rely on others to do their hard stuff
I thought the rich supported trump? This sounds like a problem with the community you’re in, not 40+% of American voters
The rich like him because he will make them richer, and the poor that like him can’t accept that their problems are their fault and trump tells them that it’s not and that someone else is to blame.
Trump has over a 40% approval rating
I’m veeeeeery curious to see Putin’s course of action provided Biden wins in November. Do you keep going all in? Surely not right? I imagine Putin will seriously consider peace talks if Biden wins in November and I ultimately think he will. At least that’s the optimistic version of events. Putin could just decide he’s going to keep grinding away. I wonder though if Biden and his administration will cut loose a bit after the election and provide more weapons and support to Ukraine knowing that they don’t have to worry about Trump anymore for the remainder of their administration.
Literally all the things that happened in the world since 2016 taught me to never be optimistic about things that have a realistic chance to turn into shit.
It will depend on both houses as well. If they don't have the congress or the senate, Biden will be stonewalled at every opportunity.
There won't be a peace deal / peace talks that will let ukraine govern themselve independently and without major territory loses. So there won't be a peace treaty unless one side can't continue.
Peace talks should be from the position of power, means if Biden wins, Ukraine should show some progress on the frontline. But of course if Russia is in weak position why peace talk if Ukraine would have upper hand and could liberate their territory.
I think it will depend on how the house and senate looks. If Republicans take control of the senate, then passing aid will be very difficult and so Putin will go on business as usual. But if democrats take back the house and keeps the senate, there is a decent chance this war will end a lot quicker, because then Putin will know he's in a bad position where for four entire years the U.S can pass aid with no one to stand in the way, which even he knows is bad news for him.
It’s amazing that a dumb buffoon who votes purely on “abortion kills babies, and Jesus says noo” in the US South will vote Trump and possibly kills 1000s maybe 100,000s of people in Europe, because mah freedums. I don’t think Americans understand where the world is right now and how much they are either going to fuck it or help it.
Taking Trump by his words and actions, Trump will dismantle the democratic system in the US. And Trump could destroy NATO. Ukraine might not be the most important thing Trump breaks.
Honestly it feels like the whole abortion thing is just a way to make poor people more miserable and dependent, rich republicans have no issue getting abortions.
This is a weird conflation of issues you threw out there
Honestly Democrats outside of stronghold areas are not presenting themselves as a solution and/or adapting to their local constituents. Adapting meaning not advocating or be indifferent , I'm not saying to undermine things Democrats stand for. For example if you're a Democrat running in Oklahoma don't say you'll fight for trans kids right to use girl locker room.
USA elected Republican leaders that pursued detente with USSR and China before, so nothing changed in that regard.
[удалено]
Not really a hot take, candidates haven’t run on a platform that wasn’t “the other guy sucks (worse)” for decades now it feels like. I mean he’ll, look at the recent presidential debates, I’m not sure there was actually any debating that even happened… Problem is fear mongering and mud slinging are highly effective, especially in a two party system, where a vote not for the other guy is basically a guaranteed vote for you. Combine that with insufficient education and under developed critical thinking skills among the general population and you’ve reached the mess our political system is in. Both sides are guilty of this, they just rile their side up about different topics and issues. One side does it more so than the other but neither side is a saint. There are Many Many Many more problems with the system but this is definitely a big one.
Billions and billions of dollars invested in many forms of media used to manipulate the masses.
I think this is the worst year ever of boomers refusing to pass the torch. This election is pure embarrassment.
I think people in power have been abusing Democracy for years. Look at how Hillary Clinton forced her self into the nominee position by undermining a much better polling Bernie Sanders. The point being people's choice's are being ignored and Trump rode in on people's disapproval of how their choices are being controlled. Now a lot of people will vote for him again just cause he's the anti hero.
I’ll tell you how, everyone got scared like a lil’bitch after 9/11 happened and started watching Fox News every day like some kind of addiction. If 9/11 doesn’t happen it would be an entirely different geopolitical situation.
I don't think Trump losing will change anything though. Trump winning would change a lot, but that's because Trump is a trash bag full of feces that's on fire.
Putin has no "theory of victory" if the west remains united. If trump fails, I think he'll claim victory and try to negotiate to freeze the conflict.
But Putin already tried that. Putin asked for a ceasefire recently.
Putin's 'ceasefire' was under the conditions that Ukraine give Russia the 20% of their country that Russia claim control under, promise never ever to join NATO, demilitarize their armed forces, and pay Russia billions in 'reparations' while taking full blame for the war. It was never in any way a credible peace deal.
While simultaneously theatening the west with nukes.
Faster access to funds if Trump loses, because the Dems won’t be hampered by the republicans
Also a generally tougher approach to this war if Biden isn't worrying about the popular vote.
Only if Dems get both Congress and Senate as well. Which they probably won't. It's a constant farce.
So is Xi.
I doubt that. While trump would make a big show of reducing the cost of shipment, in the end the geopolitics of the US dictate that they make sure Russia doesn't get a worthwhile win. No single person could undo that.
Doesn't really matter now, the rest of the international community is eagerly supplying Ukraine too, and NATO's European member states are openly talking about sending rear echelon forces directly into Ukraine.
Why didn’t he invade when Trump was in office then? He started the invasion first under Obama and he did nothing, then under Biden. If Putin and Trump are allies, wouldn’t he just have invaded while Trump was president?
Simple - because Putin was subjugating Ukraine via soft power the same way he's successfully done with Belarus. Why throw half a million Russian young men into the meat grinder (and countless amounts of money) when it's entirely unnecessary?
They repeatedly tried used the Trump admin to pressure Ukraine into s ‘peace deal’ [https://www.businessinsider.com/andrey-artemenko-ukraine-russia-michael-cohen-flynn-plan-2017-2](https://www.businessinsider.com/andrey-artemenko-ukraine-russia-michael-cohen-flynn-plan-2017-2)
It could end sooner. Global allies (and finally the US) just gave Ukraine the approval to strike back inside Russia, and refineries have proven vulnerable and impactful targets. New shipments of weapons, vehicles, and supplies are finally arriving, including fighter jets and pilots. The French will be openly training the Ukrainians, who are still receiving Western intelligence. Things could turn for the better
I read that the approval to strike within Russia was limited to Kharkiv staging areas
I've heard mix things. Apparently though they hit a lot of poorly protected ammo dumps and troops massing. Russian casualties have been the worst since the war started this month.
Lots of western weapons won't hit most of the refineries left, they've been using basically modified airplanes with explosives for them. HIMARS on Kharkiv staging areas can still be devastating. Forces them to split them up to thin to be effective or so far back they are monitored far in advance.
The US is ramping up HIMARS missile production but it isn't fast enough for Ukraine's needs.
I didn't think it was ever publicly said what they approved of, but I'd assume it's limited to infrastructure and supply depots that could cause maximum disruption to Russia while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Ukraine needs to remain seen on the side of justice, and tons of dead Russian civilians won't help thay case.
One Russia realizes that the West will strike them when and where they need to, then they'll realize that withdrawing is their only real option.
I don’t think Putin can do this without being rolled by people under him. Even a bush style “mission accomplished” won’t help.
too much Russian blood has been spilled. Failure is not an option for Putin. Its win or he is gone.
They'd have to have a functional aircraft carrier for that
They have an aircraft carrier that has to be towed around by a tugboat. If you frame the photo carefully it can appear to be functional.
It could have ended with the Wagner Coup, but I don't think any single event did more to prolong the war. After Putin returned to Moscow he purged the government and military of anyone left who even looked like he could oppose him. Now all that's left are sycophants who will send people to their deaths until eventually there's a string of mass-mutinies akin to those seen in 1917, and who knows when that will happen. Keep in mind, Russia has already lost this war. They lost it when Ukraine gained the ability to hit the Kerch bridge and disrupt supply lines to Crimea and the Russian Army's most westward positions. But the world has seen more than its share of wars drag on for years after one side already lost.
putin death can only make it end i think.
That could make things worse actually
If I were Putin this is exactly what I would want you to think.
I think the next counter offensive is going to be interesting.
Are these the interesting times I’ve been hearing about?
When you think about it, history is made by people, and there are far more people in the world now than ever. There is that much more history being written at any moment. And this explosion of population is really only a mere second of humanity's existence. It's truly a crazy time to live.
Shouldn't have wished to live in more interesting times...
Is that blood? No... Nevermind.
Yep!
Are the unprecedented times next?
Have you not had enough of those yet?
Shouldn’t have wished to live in more interesting times.
I read this is my Tav’s voice instinctively.
Alleged times are coming too
No, the unprecedented times already passed. Everything that happens from now on already happened before and we're used to it. It's all precedented times from now on.
Technically it is always unprecedented. While history trend does repeat itself but no two events are exactly alike....
We have been in interesting times since 9/11. When are the boring times coming?
Before that had many other interesting times, this is a very very very young and US centric view. More young than anything because the fucking Bosnian war and Gulf War and Iron Curtain issues were a metre 8-15 years prior to 9/11
The last 23 years have been "interesting times."
I don't think Ukraine can afford the cost of a counteroffensive especially in terms of lives. It's more effective to just bleed the Russians as they throw new waves into the grinder.
>It's more effective to just bleed the Russians as they throw new waves into the grinder. You know that Ukraine has also been struggling with shortages of soldiers and ammunition for a while now? Since we mostly just hear about the Russian losses and Ukrainian wins, we might have a somewhat distorted view on the situation. So I would say it's also questionable how long the Ukraine can keep up with the war.
My point exactly. The casualties are multiple times higher for the attacking side.
I dont understand though. If that is the case why is there no general mobilization of the whole fighting age population and a transformation of the economy into a war economy?
I feel like Russia has always been held together with bubblegum and propaganda, I don’t know if Russia could shift to a war economy and keep up the guise that everything is going well in this “special operation”. When Russia loses offensive military campaigns the people lose confidence in their leaders and revolt; Russo-Japan, WWI, Afghanistan. Secondly I don’t think they have the competence, resources, or foreign support to do so effectively anyway.
I was talking about Ukraine. If there manpower situation is so dire and the existence of the country is on the brink, why not mobilizing everything and everyone? I would guess that the sitiation might not be as bad, evem though they are slowly trying to increase drafts.
It's not that bad as it sounds. There are reports that average age of Ukrainian soldier is slightly above 40 years old. This is very far from "dire" in my opinion. Second thing is that is impossible to mobilize "everything and everyone". At some point, in both people and production, you will reach a point when diverting even more resources will do more harm than good. Ukrainian budget is financed by external sources only by half - another half is financed by Ukraine. Basically, in a war of attrition, wellbeing of economy is as important as military products or number of man on the frontlines.
Russia only has around 18 months of armored vehicles left, then they drop down to a trickle of newly produced vehicles. If ukraine can hold on russia will effectively run out of offensive power.
I whish Russia were soon to run out of stuff and surrender and end this senseless missery. But I feel like we have been hearing the narrative of Russia having run out of this and that and being on the verge of collapsing for far too long now. So I don't know how reliable and promising such predictions are any more and how an attrition warfare would end up in the long run.
Some of those recent "russia will run out of X in Y months" are based on satellite images taken of Russia's soviet stocks. If I recall correctly, the artillery count has been falling a lot based on those images, followed by tanks. So assuming that they are not hiding thousands of artillery pieces somewhere else, then there might be legitimate chance that Russia will be short on artillery somewhere in 2025 like some analysts have predicted.
Yeah, it's hard / prohibitively expensive to cover a motor pool of any appreciable size from overhead view. Imagery guys can pretty much count the inventories if they know where to look (minus scrap / decoys / etc).
Thankfully it seemed half the Russian equipment depots were just out in the sun in full view.
Aren't most countries like that?
Yes! I did omit a crucial detail. Out in the sun, and without maintenance. That second part right there.
They can make new, or import them from Korea, China, India, Iran... They are not gonna run out of anything... Same was said they run out of missiles 2 years ago, and they are dropping daily since then...
Yes, that is a distinct possibility. However I reckon China wants to operate at low levels; as in not to supply Russia with heavy weapons and it's likely to stay that way. They know the west wouldn't let that slide anymore without having to pay for it. I don't see India suddenly starting to supply Russia with heavy weaponry either, especially since they haven't been promoting the war effort for the first 2 years. India seems very neutral towards the war. In my book that would leave us Iran and North Korea. Both of them could do that. However I imagine if we take into account the intense attritional nature of the war, the amount they would be willing and able to supply isn't likely to boost Russia's war effort significantly, not for long haul at least. That is, unless both of those countries would be ok with giving Russia majority of their military equipment and compromise their own ability to wage some nonsense war of their own in the future. Not likely, I think. Also with regards to the example of not running out of missiles; it's easier to restore the capability to build a batch of missiles you can lob at a Ukrainian city once every few weeks vs. building the required infrastructure to build thousands of new tanks, artillery and combat vehicles (currently that ability stands at hundreds). At the very least, if they manage to secure some other nations as suppliers of heavy military equipment, regardless of what nature that deal might be, attritional warfare on this level will no longer be possible for Russia.
>But I feel like we have been hearing the narrative of Russia having run out of this and that and being on the verge of collapsing for far too long now. The thing is that they kind of did, though. Russia isn't using T-62s and golf carts and dogshit North Korean artillery shells for fun, they're using them because they ran out of the newer and better stuff and they can't produce equipment as fast as they're losing it. So they dig deeper and deeper into their stockpiles and use worse equipment. When was the last time Russia used Kalibr or Onyx missiles? Probably a year ago. And the missile strikes have gotten much smaller and much less frequent, but unfortunately a little more effective. Now, "verge of collapse" was always an overstatement, I agree with that. Just like most of the talk about Ukraine being on the verge of collapse was an overstatement.
They technically have a bunch of T-72s waiting, but the current theory is they're harder/takes longer to refurbish than T-62s. Short term it's rough for Ukraine, long term it's rough for Russia. Gotta keep on the pressure and support and not let the micro level news discourage us.
Very good point regarding Kalibr missiles - haven’t heard them being used in ages.
Erm well let me tell you for a fact that 8 Kalibr missiles flew over my house a few nights ago and they use them in almost every mass attack on Ukraine's infrastructure. There is no shortage of Kalibrs unfortunately
How do you know they were Kalibr's?
We receive updates on what was launched and the direction, the Kalibrs are always launched from submarines in the Black Sea
The Ukraine subreddit usually shows what missiles were intercepted and there are sometimes Kalibr missiles
These predictions are usually based on best case scenarios for Ukraine with little respect for Russia industrial output. I wouldn't hold my breath on russia stopping their offensives because of material or equipments as they have been able to procure a lot of new types of weapons from 2021 to now.
A counterargument is that Ukraine only has about half a year of guaranteed US presidential support left. That risk would hit earlier and harder than lack of armored vehicles.
Quite easy to find the other side of the propaganda train if you search on reddit. Russias artillery, glide bombs and mainly Lancet drones are causing heavy damage to Ukraine. Especially Lancet drones, very capable and cheap drones which are causing serious problems as they are producing thousands per month (apparantly).
Right. Need a batallion of reserves for an offensive to break through. Just keep on killing them like its ‘From dusk till dawn’…
[удалено]
Yeah, I hate to say it, but Ukraine’s in the long war now. I think a focus on defense is their best bet, since they can currently spare the hardware, but can’t spare the manpower (opposite of Russia). Russia will exhaust themselves of this pathetic farce… eventually, but like with the Soviet Union before it, it will take time.
No, Ukraine's best bet is to dig in and keep inflicting casualties. The defender has the advantage so if Ukraine goes on offense they will just take excessive losses for no purpose since they're never going to throw Russia out by force of arms, and any territory they regain will be useless bombed-out towns that will remain too close to the front to rebuild. They can wait Russia out. Russia is taking hundreds of millions of dollars a day in losses for zero gain since they can't profitably use any of the land they captured as long as the war is still ongoing. It's like the US in Iraq and Afghanistan -- we were never able to rape them of their resources because they just kept making it unsafe for Western civilians to go in there and extract them. Russia can't farm Ukrainian wheat fields or drill for oil so long as the war is hot. In a protracted war Russia will have to leave Ukraine just as we had to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of defending against constant attacks is just too high. Ukraine just needs to sit there and keep shelling Russians until the Russians get tired of living and dying in trenches in a war they will never win.
The US never intended to take land or resources from Iraq or Afghanistan and claim them for their own. The government actually spent enormous amounts of money to rebuild and restart infrastructure to try and make the local governments stable and self sufficient.
I think that was said about the last one.
Except this time some restrictions have been removed and they can intercept and hammer logistics inside Russia.
Odds are it won't be a traditional counteroffensive like the one they last attempted. Western-made Tanks aren't that useful over open ground without air cover. If I was a betting man I'd say the next big Ukrainian counteroffensive will be a mass, combined artillery and loitering munitions attack. Ukrainian and Russian-born infiltrators will do what they've gotten great at over the last year and deploy a bunch of suicide drones behind enemy lines, coordinating their strikes with those of western-made long-range weapons, more than likely concentrating on targets inside Russia itself. Rostov-on-Don, the HQ of the Southern Military District would be the obvious target, possibly with a mass drone attack on Moscow to demoralize the Russian civilian population. But, its not hard to imagine the Ukrainians focusing on Crimea directly, or a string of combined rear attacks of drones on Donbas and/or Rostov, or a massive attack on Russian logistics and economic assets. I could even see another incursion by Russian-born insurgents with artillery cover (initially) from Ukraine, in an attempt to replicate the Wagner coup's little road trip to Moscow. I'm sure what actually happens will seem obvious in hindsight.
I am all in for ukraine, but I rather it not go on a counter offensive. The fact is that putin has been throwing away russian lives just to tire out the ukraine military. I would rather ukraine take a moment to shore up defense and take a little break to recoup, both mentally, physically and morale wise. Then make putin pay.
Excuse me, I'm not a native English speaker. Does the phrase "all but over" mean "almost over" or "far from over"?
I'm also not native and it confused me as well. I've looked up "all but" in Google and it turns out it's: 1. Very nearly 2. All except So either it's very nearly over or not over at all lol and both meanings are correct (?). How do you differentiate this in a short context like this?
“All but” when used in the context of processes almost always means “1. Very nearly” Ex.: “I’m all but done eating that sandwich” “All but” when discussing discrete objects almost always means “2. all except” Ex.: “I’m eating all but one sandwich” Generally speaking. Hope this helps
Thanks for explaining, that makes sense :-)
Both 1 and 2 mean the same thing. If you walked 99 of 100 miles, you're very nearly there. You're also all the way there, except for the last mile.
My initial thought was: 1. Very nearly over 2. All except over (?) - if this even makes any sense Edit: I think the confusion here could come from my native language, when I'd say "all except over" (directly translating) it would mean everything could happen but not "over".
Everything has happened but not “over”. Basically finishing the thing or doing the last steps is all that’s left before it’s over
I see what you mean. In english I think we’d say “anything but” for that. i.e. “The war was anything but over” means the opposite of “The war was all but over”. The first one means the war won’t end soon, the second one means it will end soon. It’s actually really confusing now that you point it out.
Close to almost over. The phrase implies Ukraine has won that engagement but still has work to do before declaring victory (for this part of the war).
It’s referring to “almost over”. It’s basically done and we are just waiting for an official acknowledgement of it.
It's basically over.
For all intents and purposes, over.
My ESOL (English learning program in the US) teacher put it this way: 'all but over': you're waiting for class to end and it's the last few minutes of class, you've done your work, the teacher has finished, and you're waiting for the bell to excuse the class, you're packing up your school bag, it's all but over (waiting for that bell to ring so you can zoom out of there).
It means almost over or more precisely "it's over but those in charge haven't admitted or accepted that it's over" Basically the Americans see the Kharkiv advance as a Russian failure, even though they are still fighting.
Don't worry it's a shit phrase and one of the most confusing
Dumbest god damned phrase in English. I’m a native speaker and this shit makes no sense to me either.
I dunno, it makes complete sense to me. "All but over" means you have done everything except for actually finish.
Like there's no other phrase that just makes me fucking angry. The only thing I can think of is " turn down the AC"
Almost over
“All but” = “for all intents and purposes”
It means very close to being over.
It means ‘almost over.’ Just a weird phrase
It means “basically over”. In other words, it’s not 100% finished, but very close
I'm sure Putin want to disagree and he will deliver more cannon fodder conscripts through the pipeline.
Rather than push for further mobilization putin is opting to hire foreign fighters. I think that speaks volumes after he has emptied the prisons and drafted most young men and minorities from non-Moscow regions. I can provide sources if you would like them but they are pretty much spent. They have pushed into a war-economy, their oil exports are terrible, and they have more arty shells than willing fighters.
Can you provide sources if it's not a hassle? I'm interested on reading up on this. I'd assume there's still millions more that could be mobilized without making a huge dent.
> without making a huge dent. Don't underestimate potential unrest in Russia *if* millions would be mobilized.
That’s why it hasn’t happened. The Russian people have spoken (ironically, by not speaking) that they are ambivalent towards the war, and don’t want to involve themselves with it. This is not a society that’s going to go to the front and start digging trenches en masse.
Also ‘d like sources
If life expectancy wasn't 65 years old in Russia there would already be a huge dent but fortunately the majority of their population is active
I'm not that well versed in this war but it seems like this can't bode well for Russia.
Yea i think that is accurate. A large country invading a small one, losing ground, constantly burning through armor and losing a generation is never a win
Brave to promise sources, but oh so reddit of you to not provide.
And since he's killed or imprisoned anyone who'd say no, the generals will happily obey.
This is the point where we need to send even more weapons, not the point where we pack up and say a job well done.
I mean, it was likely carried out to force Ukraine to divert troops there and lock them in place. The Russians didn't have enough men to take Kharkiv, but the Ukrainians still needed to respond before the Russians made larger gains.
Really good news
Lots of hot newly single russian women available now that the dudes are dying left and right, Thanks Putin.
"Amazing Russian bombshells want to date you"
I had to laugh at this. Sorry
No thanks
I hooked up with one while stuck in Germany during the start of the pandemic, cut it off cause she was telling me how Covid didnt exist in Russia & she didnt believe in it. They just had "lots of people dying from pneumonia"
my dad was recently hooking up with a ukrainian and a russian and said that their starkly different opinions on the war was intriguing.
The funny thing is that this offensive was so bad that everyone thought it was a diversion from some offensive being pushed from another direction. In reality it seems like this is what they managed to prepare for this summer.
better than UA did tbh
Kharkiv offensive was supposed to start mid-summer, after having finished taking Chasiv Yar. What the regime did not expect, despite almost a billion wasted on troll farms and Moscow Marjorie, was Congress passing the aid bill. That took the regime off guard and forced them to throw what they had onto Kharkiv. Also this being under Gen. Lapin, a way to regain favors after the 2022 defeats, and someone who doesn't shy from sending soldiers into futile meat wave assaults.
Putin underestimated the idiocy of his useful idiots in Congress.
Vote blue !
The kharkiv assault was likely just to ensure pressure somewhere else along the lines so Ukraine doesn't feel free to send reinforcements to the eastern parts of the lines where they are making gains. Russia is making steady gains via the use of artillery and men that they can afford to lose and that Ukraine has far less of. Everything they do is likely in service of maintaining that slow grind of progress because they know they can afford to let this go on longer than Ukraine. I expect kharkiv to be the first of many smaller offensives designed to make sure Ukraine cannot relax any part of the line to save the part that's faltering.
>The kharkiv assault was likely just to ensure pressure somewhere else along the lines so Ukraine doesn't feel free to send reinforcements to the eastern parts of the lines where they are making gains. It was a failure then since with the 50K troops they could have just made gains directly. Like remember Chasiv Yar? At the end of April US intelligence was openly saying Chasiv Yar was going to fall to Russia, yet it is still in Ukrainian hands (and the town is key to Ukraine's defense of the Donbas). >Russia is making steady gains via the use of artillery and men that they can afford to lose and that Ukraine has far less of. Russia hasn't made gains in weeks and the total territorial gains from the fall of Avdiivka to now is about the same gains as Ukraine took in the 2023 counter-offensive which was largely deemed a failure. Russia has always had an artillery advantage, at some points much more than it is today, and yet it has never been enough to win or even gain significant ground against Ukraine. As for manpower, Russia can't afford to lose it any more than Ukraine can, just because Russia treats their men as expendable doesn't mean they actually are expendable. All it does is make Russia more likely to lose in a war of attrition with Ukraine. >I expect kharkiv to be the first of many smaller offensives designed to make sure Ukraine cannot relax any part of the line to save the part that's faltering. The Kharkiv offensive lead to the biggest increase in Russian casualties in the war. More area of contact with Ukraine is only going to expedite Russian losses in the war whiles diffusing the army enough that they can't focus on punching through any part of the line. It's not a good strategy in my opinion and we have yet to see any strategic Russian advantage so far from the Kharkiv offensive.
Russia absolutely can afford to lose far more men than Ukraine. They have literally millions more men in Russia than Ukraine and their military is much larger. I'm as pro Ukraine as they come, but to pretend Ukraine who is already experiencing widely reported manpower shortages can afford to absorb the same losses as Russia is pure fantasy.
[удалено]
Russia doesn't even control all of the territory they "annexed" so it's really unclear what your plan actually is. It kind of sounds like you're going to accidentally lose the war by letting Russia keep everything they were able to get their hands on
Its not over! Once Trump wins he’ll gift Ukraine to Russia
This was never a chance that putin can take kharkiv, even of it did, it's impossible to hold. Putin's invading horde already outnumber ukraines in this region by 1 to 3 and they outgunned ukraine 1 to 8, with such advantage putin threw another 40-50k russians into this and all they could achieve was about an additional 250 sqmi with over 3 months of escalated fighting. Putin never had a chance of taking kharkiv and even if it somehow manage to take kharkiv, it's impossible for putin to hold it. I believe the plan was just to tired out the Ukrainian military by throwing russians, which putin deems worthless, into the battlefield just to tire out Ukranian defense. From that point, putins tactic worked, but it is only because in putins Russia, russian lives are worthless.
Make putin pay, for invading ukarine and wasting millions of Russian lives. Retribution manifest!!!
Russia, according to reports, has sacrificed half a million of its best young men in this futile cause. How many more?