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@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"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

[–] meepster23@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Okay let me ask you why you think Ukraine has held on this long then? What do you think is the reason? According to this article and statements being made they are out numbered, out produced in arms, why are they still here?

[–] PoY@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months 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.