this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
135 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2199 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 17 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

"Advancing" isn't good enough. You can't think of any times someone was able to advance at some point, but still ended up losing a war?

Wars aren't about land, something Russians should know better than anyone else after what they did to Hitler and Napoleon.

[–] TotesIllegit@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

To add to this: taking territory is the easy part.

The hard part is holding it, because you don't just have to worry about staffing the front line, but maintaining security in the occupied regions long enough for non-state actors to cease hostilities and accept the invading force as the new legitimate authority- which may never fully occur- all the while dealing with resistance fighters.

This means orders of magnitude more personnel, funding, and equipment for an unknowable length of time across a much larger area than just the line of incursion.

It's taken them two years to fail to take the land, and now have an incursion into their own soil to contend with. so I'm skeptical they'd manage to keep it permanently.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Advances on land are definitely not a be-all/end-all kind of thing, but rather a metric in terms of current force ratio. If Ukraine had enough troops and supply of weapons, they wouldn't have to give up ground. The current supply they receive is insufficient so they have to yield ground though. It's a symptom.

Unless russia starts running out of either manpower or war supplies before Ukraine does, they are not in danger of losing. And as unpopular this opinion might be, with the current level (=limited in number and scope of use) of support Ukraine is getting, it's far from decided that russian war effort collapses first.