this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
45 points (95.9% liked)
Death to NATO
1551 readers
79 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean the reality is that none of these provocations are going to change the direction of the conflict. Given that, it makes sense why Russia doesn't want things to escalate in a significant way since it would require more resources on Russia's part, and would introduce unpredictability. If things keep going the way they are, Russia will win the war, and it's looking like that might happen within months now.
The primary goal of stunts like Kursk incursion is to convince western public that Ukraine still hasn't lost the war. For example, here's how the polling in US changed as a result
However, in terms of actual military strategy, this was a terrible move because it further accelerated the fall of Donbas. Once Russia splits the front in two between the north and the south, then it's gg well played for Ukraine. They will end up in two big cauldrons, and they will not be able to reinforce each other. The supply lines to the south will be completely cut as well. This will be the start of the general collapse of the AFU. I think this was always the plan, but Kursk sped things up significantly.
This has been the general trend throughout the war incidentally. Ukraine is always forced to hold territory long past the time it should've retreated because they're fighting a media circus. Russian army is free to make decisions without having to worry about the optics. This gives Russia a massive strategic advantage in the war.
Meanwhile, with regards to the west, Russia's been taking an asymmetric approach. They're strengthening their economic alliances with the Global South, and getting countries to join BRICS. They're now creating military alliances with DRPK and Iran, and pushing the west out of Africa and Syria. While the west is fixating on Ukraine, the empire is getting squeezed out from the rest of the world. In a sense, there's a much bigger global war of attrition happening between the west and the rest right now, and the west is losing it.
Huh, the average AmeriKKKan is even more braindead than I thought. I guess you learn something new each day (and the west will never fail to disappoint)
Although, it's worth noting that the graph is a bit misleading as it shows that 22% think that Ukraine is winning, but doesn't show 62% who didn't express an opinion. So most Americans either don’t think anyone is winning or do not care.
The average American is the 62% that isn't sure because they don't follow the war
I wonder if the west perceived Ukraine as a win-win for them in that they thought either Ukraine loses and they have all they need to then manufacture consent for direct war with Russia, or they win and NATO completes it's objective and is on Russia's doorstep now. Obviously that's irresponsible and crazy to us but we don't think in Empire Logic. Tfw when your state wages a war of attrition and starts atrophying :O
I think the original plan was based on a profound misunderstanding of Russian economy where the west drank its own kool aid regarding Russia having nominal GDP the size of Italy. The idea was that once the war started, western sanctions would swiftly crush Russian economy, and then there would be a possibility for regime change, and possibly even Balkanization of Russia.
Except, things didn't work out that way. Turned out that Russian military industrial base was bigger than all of the west combined, and on top of that China and India refused to go along with the sanctions which made the whole plan unworkable out of the gate.
It's also important to note that there is very little public support in the west for a direct war with Russia, hence why we continue to see the whole the west is not a party to the conflict narrative. The only option western leaders had was to continue using Ukraine as a proxy and to feed weapons there. After nearly three years of the war, it looks like the west is starting to hit the limits of the material support that it's able to provide, and the economic situation in the west continues to deteriorate as a result of the economic war.
It's really not clear to me what cards the west has left to play at this point.
Yeah I agree that this is probably going to end in the mother of all Blowbacks. It's fascinating (and scary) how the elite think that they can literally control reality, just because they can manufacture consent by lying 24/7 and having their media and cultural complex sell it. Like gods. But hey, they also think that financial speculation is the same thing as actual value and production so maybe it's not a big leap. I wonder if old school imperialists like Randolph Hearst were self-aware or if they too actually believed their own hype.
I suspect this is rooted in the idealist ideology liberals subscribe to. Idealists contend that ideas and thoughts are more fundamental than physical objects and events. In this view, reality is not solely determined by material circumstances but also shaped by our perceptions, beliefs, and values. Thus, idealism suggests the primacy of the mind over material reality, emphasizing that mental constructs can influence or even supersede tangible aspects of existence.
This inclination towards an abstract realm fosters a belief that one can conjure change by sheer willpower alone. Such idealistic perspectives often cause liberals to overlook practical considerations such as production capabilities and supply chains, leading to unrealistic expectations that remain elusive in the face of reality.
I guess being rich enough that you barely ever experience any consequences for your actions will give you the impression that yes, you do deserve to have all the wealth and power and this system is inherently good. If it gives them everything they could possibly need, it must therefore be good, right? Their utopia is our dystopia. A sober reminder that humans can believe ANYTHING under the right material conditions.