Did I read the same article as everyone else? I don't get where "failed offensive" is coming from. It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine's armed forces as far as I know.

Since launching a much-vaunted counteroffensive using many billions of dollars of Western military equipment, Ukraine has recaptured more than a dozen villages but has yet to penetrate Russia's main defences," .... NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told CNN that Ukrainian commanders deserved the benefit of the doubt. 'Ukrainians have exceeded expectations again and again," he said. "We need to trust them. We advise, we help, we support. But... it is the Ukrainians that have to make those decisions."

This doesn't sound like a "failed" offensive to me. The "much-vaunted" part came from the West, not Ukraine. It sounds to me like western officials got themselves psyched up based on nothing and are now whining about it. So like, yeah, critics of the slow counteroffensive, shut up. You sound as ridiculous as the people who acted like Kyiv would be taken by March 2022.

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Respectfuly, it is painful to read shit like this from uninformed people.

Here try googling this "Ukraine counter offensive goal crimea before:2023-07-01"(without quotes), just 3 random examples.

Zelensky signaled Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia is underway. Here’s what to expect

In terms of its goals, Kyiv has consistently said that it wants to recapture all of the territory controlled by Russia. In an address earlier this year Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that included Crimea.

“It is not an intention, it is our land. Crimea is our sea and our mountains,” Zelensky said.

Ukraine ‘ready’ to talk to Russia on Crimea if counteroffensive succeeds lol lmao

Ukraine's counteroffensive: Goals, opportunities, risks

In September 2022, in his only programmatic paper so far, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Lieutenant General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi offered only a rough sketch of how a Ukrainian counteroffensive might look. In the paper, he spoke of "several resolute, ideally simultaneous counterattacks." One strategically crucial target Zaluzhnyi mentioned was the Crimean peninsula, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014. In Kyiv, all agree this is the main direction Ukraine should focus its efforts. But they are also expecting surprises and deceptive maneuvers. Many, however, doubt Ukraine has enough equipment and fighting power to regain the peninsula.

Even western media tried to downplay it casting doubt from the beginning but the point I highlight is undeniably the planned goal was not achieved and it wont be achieved. Everyone would call that a failure.

But even the fucking Nazis can't agree on their own narrative and they're just coping now

Ukraine counteroffensive creeps ahead, measured in blood exactly 2 months ago, July 1st 2023

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the counteroffensive was "slower than desired", without getting too specific. Ukraine says it has recaptured a cluster of villages in operations that liberated 130 square km (50 square miles) in the south, but this is a small percentage of the total territory held by Russia.

Go tell Zelensky to shut the fuck up, oh wait.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Who are "the fucking Nazis" in your comment?

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Take a guess?

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago

The presence of Neo-Nazis within a nation's borders does not give another country just cause to invade unilaterally. The idea that, because Ukraine has Neo Nazis and incorporated groups like Azov into its formal military structure, it makes the Russian invasion justified, is to implicitly accept that bigger, more powerful countries are entitled to "spheres of influence" and thus should be able to unilaterally intervene in their neighbour's politics when it suits them.

Ukrainians aren't particularly more supportive of Neo-Nazis than any other white-dominant nation in Europe – it was just an excuse by Russia to invade.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago

What kind of evidence is that? There are neonazis in every country, that of course does not mean refering to a whole country as "fucking Nazis"

[–] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Who are “the fucking Nazis” in your comment?

Probably the Ukrainian government:

https://sendvid.com/4ic7j0d7

https://sendvid.com/ajmngmvb

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

billions of dollars of western equipment and they recaptured a dozen villages.

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want and have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Russians have the parts of Ukraine they want

This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before.

...have fortified heavily which leads my analysis of the situation to be that Ukraine recapturing the taken area is not realistic and their goal of getting Crimea on top of that to be completely delusional

I don't mean to deride your analysis, but I also do wonder how much analysis some random Hexbear user can really make. I mean, I can look at maps of assessed control from the ISW and I hear about what goes down in some of the more nationalist Russian telegram channels but I deliberately try to avoid anything that makes me sound knowledgeable in military strategy and tactics.

I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is revisionist. It was clear that Russia's military objectives in invading the rest of the country last year were to remove Zelensky and put back a friendly government to Moscow. They failed, and now are falling back on what was always the more pragmatic and "reasonable" war goal of holding the pre-February 2022 lines of control + what they still have now. But, now that an all-out state of war exists between Ukraine and Russia, it's "allowable" in the eyes of the West for Ukraine to try and regain all of its internationally-recognized territory in a way that it wasn't before

This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

I will say, that given the general attitude here that we want choices and decisions to be taken that reduce the fighting and scale of death, Ukraine's approach of incrementally retaking villages instead of throwing everything it's got in a mad rush to break Russian lines shouldn't be criticized.

Even the Ukrainians are talking in that article about how hard it is to breach the Russian defences. The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages. It is ridiculous to assume the side with less soldiers, lacking air superiority, and ran by the most corrupt nation in Europe with vast amounts of support being resold by Ukrainian generals has any chance of defeating the larger power. Early in the war Ukraine had an advantage as it's soldiers had in violation of the Minsk treaty been fighting in Eastern Ukraine for the last 8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

[–] GivingEuropeASpook@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

This whole time the Russians have been talking about wanting the east exclusively the early rush to Kiev was consistent with the stated aim of forcing Ukraine to surrender early into the war

The "special military operation" to Denazify Ukraine was not intended to be limited solely to the East. Russia tried to replicate the US operation in Iraq, and had they been successful, they'd be in a very similar position to the US after toppling both Iraqi and Afghan leadership relatively quickly, stuck propping up government with limited popular support. Also, what about everything about NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's prospective membership? That has nothing to do with injustices against Russian-speaking people.

The Ukrainians have thrown everything they had in a mad rush to break the Russian lines and only succeeded at retaking a dozen villages.

This is literally the opposite of what the article says: "Some [Western analysts] faulted Ukraine's strategy, including accusing it of concentrating its forces in the wrong places." Sounds to me like they emphatically NOT making a rush at the targets the West wants them to.

8 years so were more militarily experienced now Russia has been fighting for a while they will have worked out much of the issues of their organisation

Right, just like how that Ukrainian counteroffensive is gonna start any day now.... Its warfare. Neither side is honest about their operations, and neither side can afford to be honest about their battle plans, tactics, and strategies in order to actually make use of any of them. When Russia invaded the rest of the country, it was their modernized army that was gonna make quick work of the smaller weaker Ukrainian army. Even NATO was like "uh yeah we expect a protracted guerilla war after a quick Russian victory should Russia actually invade".

For the record, I wasn't sure if Russia would actually invade, despite all the classic rhetoric that came from the Kremlin the year beforehand.

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 21 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Given the substantial losses of men and equipment and the meagre gains I do think it is safe to assume that the counteroffensive does not go as well as Kiev has hoped for.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

It was western media that created the impression of an impending counter-offensive that would all but end the war, not anything from Ukraine’s armed forces as far as I know.

Or from NATO generals. At least not as an overall theme, or after actually understanding the situation on the ground.

I'd say western media recalled the likes of Operation Desert storm, generally "it's not a war but a drubbing" NATO operations, then saw the Kharkiv counter-offensive, missed that the fast mechanised advance was preceded by slogging advances until a breakthrough was achieved, and then expected the same thing to happen against the Surovikin line. Ukraine simply does not have the capacity to employ NATO offensive doctrine, more or less "hit the opposing force so hard in the air that they'll find themselves fighting a land war against air superiority on their whole territory".

And the Surovikin line which wasn't even the main obstacle as now transpired Russians had positions in literally every single forest belt parallel to the trenches visible from space. And mines, mines literally everywhere, Ukraine turned towards IR imagining to figure out where to best go through them (mines heat up in the sun and are then very visible at dusk).

Russia, of course, also announced the offensive failed the day it started but that was to be expected.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is why you should not defederate hexbear. Good, clean, comment. Just block the troublemakers (it's about 60 of them) and the threads automatically look more cogent.

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Am I a troublemaker? I may fit your criteria:

I don't think NATO should support Ukraine.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'll bite. Why not?

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (18 children)

what does Ukraine bring to NATO except liability.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Complete nothingburger. What military capability do the Baltic states bring? Isolated geographical position, small countries with small armies and small economies.

So it's not a factor in the first place. But even if it was, Ukraine handily outranks Poland when it comes to providing capability. They have an extensive (largely state-owned btw) arms industry, very capable engineers, and, in case you haven't noticed, fighting spirit.

Last but not least they're punching above their weight in Eurovision. Oh wait that was EU accession, not NATO.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Isolated geographical position, small countries with small armies and small economies.

worse than that what they bring to an alliance is pretty much no extra money or anything else but also a significantly higher chance of getting into a war

frankly I'm of the opinions that everything east of Germany is a pretty cheeky imposition on Russias traditional standing in Europe. You can't just break all the old rules for operating in Europe and not expect consequences

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Traditional standing, yes, as colonial empire. It may be cheeky but why would it be bad standing up against that?

You know what Russia could have done to prevent NATO expansion? Not invade Moldova, not invade Georgia, and deal with Chechnya in a manner that doesn't smell of genocide. Make sure that Eastern Europe doesn't feel threatened so that they don't feel the need to join NATO. Of course the Baltics, Poland, etc, joined, they don't want to repeat the experience of being a Russian colony.

And just for the record no I'm not actually a fan of NATO, or better put the US being part of the whole shebang. Only positive thing about that is that without Europe in the mix the yanks would likely be even worse.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

they have that standing because they have the guns. They still have the guns so they still have the standing

those rules don't just exist for no reason they are to prevent war between the powers in Europe break those rules and you risk war. It doesn't matter what the Balkans and Poland think they don't have nuclear weapons

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Oh yes Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine not being in NATO totally prevented war. How could I forget.

It doesn’t matter what the Balkans and Poland think

You're a hexbear, so presumably self-identify as being on the left. Which then leads me to the question of WTF are you pushing talking points of geopolitical realists, "there are players and there are chess pieces".

It very much matters what those states think because, as sovereign states, they enjoy freedom of alliance. To deny that means that you think it is all nice and proper for Russia to still treat them as colonies.

[–] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (15 children)

It very much matters what those states think because, as sovereign states, they enjoy freedom of alliance

I don't want to be allied with them because they bring nothing to an alliance except liability.

Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine not being in NATO prevented war between Russia and America, Britain, and France. And that is the big war that can't be allowed to happen

this isn't a new phenomenon we are talking about the great game of empire and there are very good reasons why it was always the conventional wisdom to not mess with Russia over eastern Europe. If they are sovereign states then let them be sovereign states and deal with problems on their own

load more comments (15 replies)

[–] ThereRisesARedStar@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why do you think leftists would give two shits about nations as if they were people? Leftism is an internationalist ideology.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (17 replies)

[–] Zrc@hexbear.net 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

anyone who disagrees with me is a troublemaker

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago

Alabama good ol' boy sherrifs in the 1960s be like:

load more comments (1 replies)