Ukraine tells critics of slow counteroffensive to 'shut up'
Ukraine told critics of the pace of its three-month-old counteroffensive to "shut up" on Thursday, the sharpest signal yet of Kyiv's frustration at leaks from Western officials that say its forces are advancing too slowly.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
Who are "the fucking Nazis" in your comment?
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.
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"
Who are “the fucking Nazis” in your comment?
Probably the Ukrainian government:
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
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.
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
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.
Ukraine needs to get within artillery range of certain major logistical hubs to hamper Russian reinforcement and supply via the southern corridor. And it is close, now. The Russian administrators of Melitopol have already abandoned the place.
With ATACMS, this would have been easier, fyi.
Only people who don't understand the situation repeat the sort of thing you are claiming.
Furthermore, the US aid to Ukraine was mostly stuff that was destined to be decommissioned. The "billions of dollars" is on paper, not in fact. Nothing Ukraine is receiving from the USA is current gen or in use by the US and therefore isn't diminishing the US armed forces. Arguably it's actually increasing US strength, since the USA is now ramping up artillery shell production.
From a strategic standpoint, destroying the Russian military (estimated around 50% of Russia's MBTs and Airforce) in exchange for stuff you weren't going to use anyway is a bargain.
no one wants them to hit those places with artillery if the Ukrainians start using American artillery on Russian cities the Americans will have kittens
Russia has nuclear weapons which means there is a line that can't be crossed with regard to dealings with them
It's all about plausible deniability. The US didn't want to arm them with anything that could reach Moscow and hit Russian territory in general, but the Ukrainians have developed the ability to do so on their own, so now US officials I think are more willing to discuss these things, since it can't be directly traced to them (since now Russia can't prove it was specifically American armaments or equipment used whenever it gets hit inside it's territory).
but the Ukrainians have developed the ability to do so on their own
no they haven't they're using artilery equipment we gave them.
no they haven't they're using artilery equipment we gave them.
Don't blatantly lie.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-weapons-can-hit-russia-targets-430-miles-away-zelenskyy-2023-9 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-develops-weapon-zelenskyy-says-1.6953132
So, if you wanna say "oh secretly it was still the US that supplied the drones or whatever", extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I thought you were talking about artillery. Those drones are just repurposed consumer drones fitted with explosives they aren't on the scale needed to make a major difference
Nope. Just to be sure I went back and checked my initial wording, and I can see why you thought I meant artillery. I should have specified that they are using their own domestically developed military equipment to strike targets within Russia, which could theoretically allow them plausible deniability to then use a couple of Western-supplied artillery, assuming they could do it in such a way that Russia wouldn't be able to tell if it was a drone, IED, or proper artillery.
These weapons are the kind of thing the Ukrainians have developed to "retaliate" against random civilian housing blocks whenever Russia craters a command center. They're basically modern V1/V2 rockets "This will terrify the russian population into submission!!"
While i don't doubt Russian civilians have gotten hurt or killed, ukraine isn't targeting city centers or hospitals deliberately the way Russia has.
You do realize that increasing us strength and military spending are bad things right? That just means more death and misery to thr world in general and US residents aslo?
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.
Totally – but I think in the west, people were conditioned to expect breakneck speeds similar to the initial invasion and push towards Kyiv by Russian forces or the rapid advance last year of Ukrainian troops that pushed out Russians from Kyiv suburbs and northeastern Ukraine.
In my mind, a "failure" would mean that they gained nothing – not even a few small villages.
3 months for getting past the screening line while losing majority of your combat capability is... well... abysmal.
while losing majority of your combat capability
We're watching this conflict unfold from a million miles away, how could you possibly know that they've lost most of their combat capability? That wasn't mentioned in the article. If the article is paywalled for you, I was able to read it entirely with Firefx's easy-read button.
You should check out Telegram and Youtube, you have numerous videos and photos of destroyed Ukrainian armor, drone strikes on radars and artillery, while analysts count everything. The brigades were already at most 50% of capacity before the offensive, but many have been rendered combat ineffective since, meaning there are too many casualties to be able to continue operations, so the reserve brigades (many of which were meant to exploit the breakthrough if it succeeded) have been rotated in already. In short, Ukraine broke its teeth on the screening line so now they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the front. After the offensive stalls for good and the Rasputitsa begins, Russia will most likely begin its own offensive, which will be disastrous for Ukraine.
You should check out Telegram and Youtube, you have numerous videos and photos of destroyed Ukrainian armor, drone strikes on radars and artillery, while analysts count everything.
I used to in the first few months of the invasion, but I decided I'd only try to keep up with any significant developments (like if a city changes hands or something new happens, like a particularly brazen drone strike) for the sake of my own mental health.
The brigades were already at most 50% of capacity before the offensive,
Which YouTube sources were saying this?
Check History Legends, and I believe Weeb Union has been reporting it as well.
Subbed to both lol
Edit: unsubbed from History Legends after noticing a pattern of "anti-woke" comments from him and his weird view of colonialism (inferring that African countries shouldn't ask for reparations unless Arab countries are willing to do the same for Spain)
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.
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.
Am I a troublemaker? I may fit your criteria:
I don't think NATO should support Ukraine.
I'll bite. Why not?
what does Ukraine bring to NATO except liability.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression, or other states also of course. Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military. Which makes them less of a threat to NATO
yeah and if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you
They were very defensive in Libya and Yugoslavia
Nice argument, however the population supported it:
According to a Gallup poll conducted in March and April 2012, a survey involving 1,000 Libyans showed 75% of Libyans were in favor of the NATO intervention, compared to 22% who were opposed.[1] A post-war Orb International poll involving 1,249 Libyans found broad support for the intervention, with 85% of Libyans saying that they strongly supported the action taken to remove the Ghadafi regime.[2]
[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/156539/opinion-briefing-libyans-eye-new-relations-west.aspx [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20170608060559/https://www.orb-international.com/article.php?s=4-in-5-libyans-agree-country-heading-in-right-direction-according-to-post-revolution-citizen-poll
So it sounds more like you are just anti-NATO from an ideological perspective
Libya ended in open air slave markets lmao, and you're citing western sources saying "well they aaked for it
That is a ridiculous argument and you know it, unless your idealism has blinded you. "Something bad happened later so something good can't have happened before"
Yet you gloss over what it was like in these countries before. Here is an example of how Iraq was before: https://youtu.be/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB
Does that mean the Iraq invasion was good? No. However don't remove all nuance from a discussion about helping the population overthrow a dictatorship, and the potential consequences of that action, just to attempt a cheap shot.
Gaddafi had his problems but sol massively improved under him. Given we back plenty of much worse dictatorships, it wasn't done for altruistic reasons. It was done because he was giving a cut of the wealth to the masses instead of to neocolonial powers. Incidentally, improving sol and education like Gaddafi was doing tend to trend to democratic transitions over time.
The open air slave markets were a direct result of the intervention. The US backed regime didn't have a democratic mandate and didn't have Gaddafi's entrenched power structures and collapsed.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/CR1X3zV6X5Y?si=QVE1b277NIVHnOUB
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It is not an alliance against the Russian federation. It was an alliance against the ussr. After that it became a rogue army for enforcing us hegemony. Every time it has been used it was to make the world worse. This mercenary core was originally made of nazi generals with nazi soldiers as well. So it really boggles the mind that anyone thinks they could be good for the world.
NATO is a defensive pact to protect nations from russian aggression
NATO is a legacy of the Cold War that was aimless until the Russian invasion lol. The Soviet Union even tried to join NATO when it was first talked about and was rebuffed (and you can't say it's because "muh democracy," as Greece, Turkey, and Portugal - a literal fascist state until 1974 - have all been or are authoritarian states at various points in their NATO memberships).
Plenty of geopolitical experts have discussed how financial support of Ukraine is the best investment when it comes to weakening the Russian military.
Plenty also argued from the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO expansion into eastern Europe would antagonize Russia.
Yeah it's pretty clear you're not trying to have a reasonable discussion when you mention that the USSR wanted to join NATO. That was an attempt to undermine the defensive pact by using it's own rules about inter-member conflicts against it.
One of the core strengths of NATO is that if a country is invaded then the other countries can't just vote to kick that state out. There is no mechanism to remove another country from the group, by design. So you are either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting it when you discuss issues with certain members during their membership
You sound as ridiculous as the people who acted like Kyiv would be taken by March 2022
I mean, in that case Russia was the much superior force on paper, and it didn't happen because they're more incompetent than was thought possible for anyone. I think you make a good point but this isn't a great comparison.
