looks like western sponsors of the war might have had enough of Zelensky
It is time for sober reflection. The Ukrainian people deserve leadership focused on practical, achievable objectives, not on grandstanding gestures. While courage and defiance are admirable, they must be tempered with strategic wisdom. The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
The path to victory lies not in symbolic acts of defiance, but in the methodical, relentless pursuit of territorial liberation.
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses? War is more complicated than “just liberate the occupied territory”. And while it’s true that this counteroffensive has its risks. Everything they do or don’t do has its risks.
They’re suggesting that everything is Zelensky’s fault so they can blame him, turn public opinion against him (remember how much everyone thought he was a hero last year), so that when they coup/assassinate him people won’t mind.
I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I just don’t see a possible victory for Ukraine, at all. Maybe in the past, but at this point it seems like Ukraine should be focused on making their terms of surrender as beneficial to themselves as possible. I don’t see Kursk changing that calculus.
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses?
That’s clearly a losing strategy, too, but the “we’ll fight them to the last Ukranian” crowd is still too far from reality to admit it.
The best decision for the Ukranian people is to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible, which means accepting that when you are losing a war the peace isn’t going to involve crazy shit like getting more territory than you started with (Crimea). They’ve lost, and they can come to terms with it now or do so later after a bunch more Ukranians die only get a worse outcome.
The reason the Ukranian government isn’t doing that is because their NATO puppetmasters don’t give a shit about the casualties of their proxies – they just want to bleed Russia as much as possible. So without the option to negotiate, and with the impossibility of winning on the main front, they have to try Hail Mary gambits like the Kursk invasion.
Ah, so the next phase of Amerikan ‘friendship’ is due to start. (Y’know, the point where the betray they guy they’ve been funding for like a decade and send him scurrying into a mountain range if he lives, right?)
looks like western sponsors of the war might have had enough of Zelensky
That’s just stupid. Are they really suggesting Ukraine should focus solely on grinding through fortified Russian defenses? War is more complicated than “just liberate the occupied territory”. And while it’s true that this counteroffensive has its risks. Everything they do or don’t do has its risks.
They’re suggesting that everything is Zelensky’s fault so they can blame him, turn public opinion against him (remember how much everyone thought he was a hero last year), so that when they coup/assassinate him people won’t mind.
I think they are just meant Ukraine should stick to the original strategy of prolonging the war no matter what. It’s lost either way, but costly losses will finish it faster than daily grind as usual.
I’m not sure how to understand your comment. Currently neither side is winning or loosing. Which is why neither side is willing to give up. The west needs to decide if they want to keep it that way, or give Ukraine enough support so they can finish the job “fast”.
What is Ukraine’s path to victory?
Ukraine needs a steady supply of modern weapons and the freedom to use them on Russian territory. That way they can continue dismantling the Russian military and minimize casualties. The Russians are pulling a lot of equipment from storage and are refurbishing it. But those storages won’t last forever. Also, Russia may have a large population (so does Ukraine), but pretty much everybody willing to fight is already fighting. Also economic hardships are only going to increase. In other words, political instability in Russia is increasing and with it Putin’s ability to mobilize troops. Don’t forget, Putin can pull out at any time without loosing his power. For Ukraine it’s about survival.
I wish I had Russia’s economic hardships https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399
It seems for every issue in Russia you pose, Ukraine is faring worse-off. Ukraine is grabbing people off the streets, the majority of die-hard loyalists signed up when the war started.
I don’t see how Ukraine wins by “using modern weapons on Russian Territory.”
Yes, Ukraine faces a lot of the same problems. That’s why it needs international help. The difference is that even if Ukranians don’t want to fight. At least they have a good reason to.
I’m not saying that victory will be easy. All I’m saying is that it’s very much possible.
I just don’t see a possible victory for Ukraine, at all. Maybe in the past, but at this point it seems like Ukraine should be focused on making their terms of surrender as beneficial to themselves as possible. I don’t see Kursk changing that calculus.
I’m sorry but Russia is 100% winning and has been for quite a while now
That’s clearly a losing strategy, too, but the “we’ll fight them to the last Ukranian” crowd is still too far from reality to admit it.
The best decision for the Ukranian people is to negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible, which means accepting that when you are losing a war the peace isn’t going to involve crazy shit like getting more territory than you started with (Crimea). They’ve lost, and they can come to terms with it now or do so later after a bunch more Ukranians die only get a worse outcome.
The reason the Ukranian government isn’t doing that is because their NATO puppetmasters don’t give a shit about the casualties of their proxies – they just want to bleed Russia as much as possible. So without the option to negotiate, and with the impossibility of winning on the main front, they have to try Hail Mary gambits like the Kursk invasion.
This is not a counter offensive, it’s a political stunt for the benefit of the smooth brained western public.
Ah, so the next phase of Amerikan ‘friendship’ is due to start. (Y’know, the point where the betray they guy they’ve been funding for like a decade and send him scurrying into a mountain range if he lives, right?)