Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
Ukraine surrendering is evidently not happening either. Given that Russia is indisputably in the wrong, maybe that’s the side we should put pressure on. Just a thought.
Put pressure we do, rest assured.
But, just objectively, what’s the endgame here? I saw a lot of people shit on Russian opposition for not stopping Putin. But, what can Ukraine and the entire world that supports it do? Russian state’s position is simple, it wants Donbas and Luhansk IN Ukraine (=take over it) or there would not be Ukraine at all. What’s the move here? Just supplying Ukraine with weapons won’t do. Accepting Ukraine into NATO is impossible. Going all NATO against Russia is suicidal. Real talk, get some ideas, and quick, on how to get more troops on Ukrainian soil, and make them real. The comments just shitting on Russia and chanting the same words on twitter won’t help - we’ve tried already.
It’s going to happen eventually, as they’re going to run out of recruits before the Russians do. This is like playing a game of chess to the bitter end, only the pieces are real human beings. Hundreds of thousands of them.
We don’t live in a “1 soldier = 1 soldier” world, haven’t for several millennia actually. There are weapons that multiply lethality by different amounts on both sides, so it’s more of a question of who gets the better gadgets and manages to use them in better strategies.
Except, at the end of the day, someone runs out of soldiers. If Ukraine keeps wasting resources in a futile counteroffensive, it’s going to be Ukraine. Military doctrine going back centuries has told us that defending is far easier if your technological capability is even marginally close to equivalent.
Ukraine is getting fully functional F-16s, Russia has already shown that they tape down Garmin GPSs to their fighter jet dashboards. That’s… not “marginally close”.
Maybe Ukraine should regroup and stay on the defensive in the meantime, but I wouldn’t bet on Russia in 2024.
Except… It sort of is? GPS was first launched in 1978 (oh look, the year the F-16 was introduced). The F-16 is an ancient platform and Ukraine has already shown that CAS is rather challenging given how advanced modern munitions are. At the start of the war they were literally plucking planes out of the sky.
Plus, NATO doctrine relies on complete battlefield superiority and complex logistics… Things that Ukraine lacks. How exactly is Ukraine supposed to turn the tides with F-16s when the Russians have stealth planes and hundreds of Su-35/34/30s?
It’s not about how old is the platform, it’s about what you put into it. Is the F-35 still randomly rebooting mid flight? The F-16 hasn’t had that problem for decades, and it can run modern hardware just fine.
Stealth planes are irrelevant in a dogfight, or in defending ground assets, and all those Su-* have been shown to be lacking proper maintenance for decades. We’ll see how they manage against a fully operational and updated bunch of F-16s.
Dogfights are an outdated paradigm.
If an Su-57 picks up your radar signature and gets a lock, you better pray to your countermeasures suite because you’re not even going to get a glimpse of it. That’s literally the entire modern US fighter paradigm.
You’re supporting my point: those F-16s are going to have the latest countermeasure suit.
It doesn’t matter how “invisible” is the plane (Ukraine already downed a Russian Su-57) or how “hypersonic” is the missile it launches (Ukrainian ground countermeasures are also taking care of those), what matters is whether it can hit you or not.
A bunch of “old” F-16s equipped with the latest stuff, plus some decent ground support… we’ll see how it goes, but since Russia hasn’t been able to establish air superiority over Ukraine in all this time, with a little push Ukraine likely will.
Why would the hastily trained Ukrainian recruits be any better than the Russian ones? Ukraine looks to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, since they’re now also conscripting HIV positive and mentally ill men. It also looks like Ukraine has higher losses, especially now with the offensive, meaning that over time more experienced Russian soldiers are going to be fighting Ukrainian fresh recruits.
Russia also has more equipment and ammunition. And don’t start talking about quality: Most of the stuff that was sent to Ukraine is old stuff, and Russia also has a mix of old and new stuff. Even when you compare the numbers of roughly equivalent types of weapons, Russia comes out ahead in pretty much every category.
These stories about the superior NATO weapons, superior NATO training and whatnot are propaganda. There are warhawks that use this story to dismiss the obvious quantitative difference, bigots that love to believe in Russian inferiority and incompetence, and weapons manufacturers trying to advertise their Wunderwaffen. It’s all bunch of crap.