World News

Right, and that's the conundrum for the west and Ukraine. Since Ukraine is entirely dependent on the west, they have to keep showing visible progress that western public can understand in order for western governments to continue dumping money into Ukraine. So, the pressure is to make big offensives like the one we're seeing now that are incredibly costly and can't be realistically sustained.

On the other hand, Russian military doesn't have to constantly make preformative stunts for the domestic public in Russia. They can go at the pace they choose to, and grind down Ukrainian army in a war of attrition. The best example of the fact that Russian army decided to spend half a year on building defensive lines and organizing its army without making any visible progress. Western media have been screaming at the top of their lungs the whole time that this is a clear sign of how incompetent Russian army is and that Russia isn't capable of making any progress.

Russians knew that the west would force Ukraine into a disastrous offensive sooner or later, and now we see the results of that. Ukraine is seeing incredible losses, and its not able to even fight its way out of the security zone before the first line of defence.

I expect that once the Ukrainian offensive burns itself out in another month or so, we'll see Russians going on an offensive against depleted and demoralized remnants of the Ukrainian army.

Interestingly enough, this dynamic was understood by NATO analysts for a while now. Here's a pretty insightful article explaining the dynamic and predicting precisely what we're seeing unfold now https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/whats-ahead-war-ukraine

This reminds me of what happened in Kherson, where Russia fled back over the river. Was it around the end of last year?

It was touted as a huge victory for Ukraine. Maybe it was. It seemed obvious to me that Russia would gain little by trying to keep open a supply line at the time across the river, potentially leaving it's troops and equipment vulnerable. I know what I'd have done—there's a point at which you've got to cut your losses.

If it was even cutting their losses; if they weren't too interested with Kherson at the time, it could've been a success, by drawing in Ukrainian forces, away from something else they Russia actually wanted at the time.

Same as the land towards Kiev/in the North. All presented as huge losses for Russia. I'm sure there's war propaganda that slips past me. 100% sure, in fact. But this western reportage about land is all shoddy, transparent propaganda.

I assume it's intended to maintain public support and to sell papers/air time. It's easy to forget that what journos push as an exciting narrative (read: trivialising and cynically twisting a tragedy for personal gain) gets eyes on paper/screen—an invitation to sell advertising space to the army surplus and hunting stores for new camos and knives.

Not to mention the dialectic between the public knowing this story because it's in the movies, and the public afterwards thirsting to buy more cinema tickets to watch movies that help them imagine being the hero in the Ukrainian unit. (And vice versa for Russians and Russian media.)

When we hear about the land is a pompous politician, who's shit ideas get plastered over every sheet and screen. When it's news about how much equipment Ukraine is losing, it's hidden in an article with loads of inflated rhetoric that doesn't really mean much. We can't claim they don't tell us what's happening but they obfuscate the truth like hiding a single blueberry in a kale and spinach smoothie.

It's also the big mistake that literally everyone fighting in Russia has found out: the Russians can retreat longer than you can attack.