• Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    3 months ago

    remind me, where has Ukraine been getting its weapons? why haven’t they swept the nasty russians out of Donbass and Crimea with oh so superior NATO equipment?

    • meepster23@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Mostly old Soviet stock piles and some western weapons. You don’t actually believe that the entire Ukrainian army is being supplied by NATO do you?

      • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        3 months ago

        you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment

        • meepster23@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          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 [love/loves]@hexbear.net
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            ·
            3 months ago

            “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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              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?

              • PeeOnYou [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                28
                ·
                3 months ago

                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 [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                3 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.