Finland to provide Ukraine with $691 million in military equipment
-
Virtually meaningless. What Zelensky actually needs is men for the slaughter; he’s running out of his own even while kidnapping them, keeping the borders closed and stopping consular services for fighting-age men abroad. Wondering when he’ll lower the conscription age to 18, then maybe 16, 12… he did say til the last Ukrainian after all.
-
Seems to be a nice new influx of Russian sock puppet accounts in the last 24 hours.
-
The better-equipped the army is, the fewer casualties it takes while fighting. This is why you see stuff like Desert Storm, in which one side was enormously better-equipped and took a tenth of the casualties of the other
-
It was an interesting observation though
-
True, but fewer casualties doesn’t mean more manpower to achieve military goals/victory. This is a war of attrition - a losing war for Ukraine, as it was from the very beginning. Depressing that so many lives were lost / forever changed in vain. And the country’s “leader” doesn’t want it to stop. Truly dystopian.
-
They literally do mean more manpower in the future. If you lose less now, you have more than you would have going forward.
And the country’s “leader” doesn’t want it to stop.
This is nonsense. He doesn't want it to stop on terms that would be equivalent to a total defeat. I see that you're a fan of Trump, but don't let that cloud the fact that Trump's "deal" was nothing more than an attempt at extortion.
-
Losing less =/= not losing at all / increasing in size. Not to mention that any casualty is a tragedy. The only way Ukraine could win this is through an all out war supplied by other countries with troops. And no-one wants WW3, so it’s not happening. Is giving up a portion of your territory a “total defeat”? In exchange for stopping the loss of literal human life? Any respectful leader would put human life first, as they should.
-
No, it does not magic more manpower out of thin air. As you said, though, it is a war of attrition. It cuts down the attrition. That matters, because right now Russia remains unable to sweep through Ukraine and is having to offer more and more to offset its own attrition. Tank depots are running dry. Inflation is spiking. Ukraine gets away with its economy being fucked becase Europe is propping it up with funding.
Giving up territory now without meaningful security guarantees does nothing to prevent Russia from coming back for more later. Like how it took Crimea in 2014 and came back for more. Like what it did in Chechnya. Like what it did in Georgia. Russia got away with it once, it did it again. Giving up a portion of Ukrainian territory without actual backup isn't just that, it's surrendering entirely to being a Russian puppet state, because if Ukraine does anything against Russia's interests then Russia just comes back for more.
Tell me, how much of your own country would you give up to an invader that acts like that? What if it was the part you lived in?
-
Firstly, the US offered an obvious though not explicit security guarantee. US mining operations in Ukraine -> US investment -> US needs to protect its investment as money is king in this world. The reason it was not explicit is to not poke Russia and further escalate the conflict (aka a security guarantee such as boots on the ground which Zelensky wanted). Secondly, about the personal question you asked: as much needed in order to stop the war. I’d never put imaginary man-made concepts such as borders / territory above human life. Territory can be regained, human life can’t. We’d cross that bridge once we get to it. If it was the part I lived in? I don’t care who governs, it’s literally meaningless as long as life goes on and my family / friends get to be alive and well. Regimes change all the time anyway.
-
If it was so obvious then Russia obviously knows too and it should just be explicit. Ukraine can't rely on implications here. The Budapest memorandum clearly wasn't good enough.
Territory can be regained
By what means? More bloodshed? Or are you hoping the invader just decides to return it out of the goodness of their own heart?
Considering the long history of Russification in Russia's territories, life doesn't just get to go on and family and friends are not all alive and well.
-
That’s to be decided. There are many variables and possibilities depending on the circumstances. I don’t agree with your last paragraph. My country (Romania) shares borders with Ukraine & we’ve been under the occupation of many nations (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire if we go super far back). Life just went on as usual. Who runs the country is, again, meaningless in regard to day to day life. Also funny that you mention “Russification in Russia’s territories”. Romanians are a significant minority in Ukraine (mainly Cernăuți region) and the Ukrainian government has treated my ethnicity like shit. No Romanian-speaking language schools allowed; education only in Ukrainian; Romanian language and culture suppressed systematically. Ukraine plays by Russia’s playbook. They’re birds of a feather. I’m sorry but I don’t buy the “war of existence” propaganda piece, especially since Ukraine already had Russian-majority pockets and they lived just fine with the Ukrainians. Zelensky’s first language is not even Ukrainian. The gained territories would just be annexed into Russia & be treated as any other federal subject.
-
the Ukrainian government has treated my ethnicity like shit.
Sounds like it matters who's in charge then, doesn't it?
-
In regards to day to day life? No. In regards to society at large? Yes. The Ukrainians might be inconvenienced in certain aspects under Russian leadership, but so are Romanians under Ukrainian one. Life goes on for both. Ukraine should liberate the Romanian majority region if they want to play the “good guy, victim card” and not seem hypocritical at least.
-
How do you not realise how contradictory what you're saying is?
-
I don’t see the contradiction. Are people alive and well? Yes. Does life go on? Yes. Are there also some systematic inconveniences? yes. Is it an “existential” threat? No. You just refuse to see anything beyond the propaganda that you’re being fed & deflect from any point, instead shifting the conversation to a comfortable place for you. For example: do you support the perpetual human rights violations and abuses committed by the TCC? Chances are you’ll just deflect or use whataboutism. My base comment mentioned consular services for Ukrainian men abroad. Do you support that? These are all factual, documented things.
-
You just refuse to see anything beyond the propaganda that you’re being fed & deflect from any point,
-
Calling out your hypocrisy doesn't mean your answers were on point. I'm sorry your hypocrisy is sad, maybe try not to be a hypocrite next time.
