• Ooops@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “If Western leaders are serious about preventing a Russian victory, they should demonstrate their resolve via long-term commitments to Ukraine with the clearly stated objective of a decisive Ukrainian military victory.”

    Long-term commitments like EU membership and military production and budgets already spanning the next years? Why has no one thought about this yet? Oh, wait…

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right now many Western leaders talk about Russia loosing the war, which is not the same is Ukraine winning.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, it actually is.

        But let’s just stop arguing and pretend I win that argument, which is not the same as you losing…

        • tryptaminev@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          War isnt a zero sum game. It is very possible for both sides to loose in the context of input vs output. Russia could gain some territory that is lost for Ukraine,but pay such a heavy price for it, that it wasnt worth it in the end.

          And the longer the war drags on, the more attrition happens to Russia, unless they give up. And it seems to be the western strategy to make Russia incurr as much damage as possible, whereas a decisive Ukrainian victory could allow both countries to start revover sooner.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It really isn’t, Russia might grind itself to nothing but unless Ukraine is well equipped enough that will still leave the Ukrainians ruined by the conflict in the aftermath.

          Even if they’re able to get themselves a Marshall Plan tier recovery package they’re still going to be rebuilding for a long time after the war, and a lot of already departed Ukrainians will hesitate to come back if the war drags on long enough for them to have developed lives in whatever places they found shelter in.

          • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually don’t think the aftermath is going to be the issue here. The seeming interminability of the situation is. Unless the West finally commits to the goal of a Russian defeat in Ukraine the situation will keep dragging on until one side collapses. And banking on the Russians being the ones to collapse first seems like an increasingly dangerous proposition, moral aspects aside. The trouble is that realistically, only the US has the arsenal to supply Ukraine right now as the other partners have pretty much exhausted their available stocks. And even with a firm commitment, building up the production capacity to keep Ukraine alive is going to take time which is fast running out for that embattled nation. If Ukraine can prevail and is fast tracked into the EU, rebuilding it will be almost trivially easy despite the high cost. Because money the Europeans can spare. Arms they cannot.

            • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine has gotten EU money to buy arms from the EU and most of the have to be made first. Ukraine has placed a lot of orders with that money and they are in production right now. Last summer Ukraine ordered 100 PZH-2000, 60 Krab and France has started CAESAR production at war time level. For air defence there are newly made IRIS-T coming to Ukraine as well as a lot of similar systems. There is a deal with Rheinmetall to set up a tank factory in Ukraine. There is a lot more happening behind closed doors and a lot of the known stuff is German propably because German opsec sucks, but more is coming from Europe. A lot more.

          • Hillock@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For Ukraine this always has been a fight for survival. Anything that results with Ukraine resotring the border to what it was prior to the invasion can be considered a win. Double so if Ukraine regains control over Crimea. And tripple so if Russia loses its ability to launch another invasion. But these are just bonus objectives, it isn’t the goal of the war for Ukraine, even if some rethoric makes it seem that way.

            The alternative to winning was always ceasing to exist. It might not have happened after this invasion but would have been inevitable. The cost of rebuilding doesn’t matter considering the alternative. And I don’t see the West abandoning Ukraine in their rebuilding efforts. The EU is almost certainly going to open conversaitions about Ukraine becoming a member. It would probably include a multi year plan of rebuilding with restricted membership before becoming a full member.

            And there are tons of people waiting to swoop into Ukraine and buy up the cheap land and develope it. They aren’t going to do it out of the good of their hearts but it will still speed up the rebuilding of Ukraine.