• Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    29 days ago

    you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment

    • meepster23
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      I mean the fact that they are still standing is a pretty solid endorsement. By your logic Kyiv should have fallen in the first week like Russia was claiming it would.

      Specific example off the top of my head is the cruise missile strikes against the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet using Storm Shadows I believe iirc

      • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        29 days ago

        “by my logic” i didn’t say ukraine would have crumbled without NATO arms. i’m questioning how superior and helpful NATO arms are, remember?

        but if the only thing it’s helped with has been striking Russia’s fleet in a war being fought on land in the east, lmao that seems very consequential

          • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            29 days ago

            because NATO, read the US and UK won’t let them negotiate a peace deal, so they keep hauling men off the streets and throwing them to the front line meat grinder

            eventually they will have to negotiate

          • ProletarianDictator [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            29 days ago

            Because Russia isn’t seeking to destroy Ukraine.

            Those are US and NATO military objectives intended to prevent populations from industrializing so they remain dependent on your productive capacity and exchange their natural resources to obtain goods you produce.

            Russia doesn’t want that. Russia wants to neutralize a security threat on its border.

            Blitzkrieg / shock and awe tactics don’t work if you intend to govern its victims. Soviet military doctrine was more oriented towards drawn out siege warfare letting your factories wear down your enemies. Russia seems to be employing that doctrine here too.

            This war was never going to be a short affair, even if the Atlantic printed stories saying so.