this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32294 readers
1108 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
1
Ukraine war narrative doesn't add up (www.msn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Skooby1@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

If Ukraine is able to replace or recover damaged vehicles why is Zelensky still asking for more tanks (in Switzerland right now)? I thought the sanctions were going to trigger massive inflation and unrest in the Russian economy and their desire to support the war would disappear. I thought the Russians were out of ammunition last year and now they're bombing relentlessly. I though their morale was so low they were going to capitulate when this attack happened, yet their first main line of defensive trenches hasn't yet been touched. If Ukraine morale is high and Russian morale is low why are Ukrainians surrendering or refusing to fight on the front lines?

Austin told us all that he had high expectations for the counter-offensive two days before the Pentagon leaks revealed there were actually low expectations. Why believe the boy who already cried wolf, especially when his words don't align with reality? There's been too much lying. The war is costing too much in terms of tax payer dollars and Ukrainian lives. This Biden administration is stuck is a sunk cost fallacy and needs to stop.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In April of 2022, people began to ask if Russia could run out of artillery shells. The arm-chair generals laughed, and said that Russia had enough shells stored up to keep this pace until December! Then October rolls around and the shelling decreases to a level just above their production.

At the start of the war, every day there would be long range missile barrages. Now they save up what they produce over the course of 2 to 3 weeks and shoot them all at once (which is a better tactic, overwhelm anti-air, too bad they aren't hitting anything of military significance).

At the start of the war, they were using brand new high tech tanks, and even having contests and parades using the old tanks. Now Soviet era tanks are on the front line. At the start of the war, when sanctions started, the Ruble went up! Now even Moscow is admitting a spending deficit. At the start of the war, Russian patriotically signed up to serve. Now Wagner can't even recruit prisoners with full pardons.

Ukraine has near-infinite weapons and finite people. Russia has near-infinite people and finite weapons. The looser of the conflict will be who runs out first: Russia's weapons or Ukraine's people.

[–] Skooby1@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ukraine can't even get people to sign up anymore without forcing them. They're begging for weapons all over the world, and facing increasing resistance for that supply.

Meanwhile Russia is cycling reserves and allowing them furlough time, and their military industrial capacity has increased to the point that newly produced weapons and armor are appearing all over the front lines.

You can't maintain this lie for much longer. The evidence is increasingly revealing. Personally I think after this counter-offensive is over it won't be possible any longer.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I said myself that Ukraine is running out of people. Russia is shipping in Iranian drones, Belarus tanks, and North Korean shells. Eventually either non-Ukrainian will out number Ukrainians on the front line, or Russian will be be completely equipped with non-Russian equipment.

[–] juergen_hubert@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The government of Russia is still committed to this war, and as long as this is the case the sanctions against Russia and the military support for Ukraine just continue.

The fascists should not win this fight.

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How prescient.

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's probably a liberal democracy in a nutshell - where a fascist state would openly say we need to fight them, bcs they are subhuman - a liberal state would say - we need to fight them, bcs they lack our democracy... (whispering) ...bcs they are subhuman

[–] admin@thegarden.land 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sunk cost fallacy implies that the West is supporting Ukraine for profit. They are supporting Ukraine because it’s the right thing to do.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Do you think helping create and fund coups is "the right thing to do"? Do you think we'd be in the situation we're in right now if not for that? The USA is supporting Ukraine as an extension of what got us to this point: expansionist policy driven by greed for profit.

Helping build a bulwark against anything that challenges the hegemony of the Western Free-Market Economy is also another huge factor, and arguably the primary reason for Russia's participation in the war as well. The USA is absolutely terrified of a competing ideological and economic system simply existing; the USA doesn't destroy communist movements because they think they're evil incarnate, they destroy them because they threaten their existing structure by offering an alternative (this is why sabotaging communist movements has proven so useful: if you make it look like they're all bound to fail, you can perhaps prevent them from gaining as much support in the first place).

[–] zkikiz@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because you haven't been paying attention to developments doesn't mean things don't add up. You seem to be unaware that sanctions are only mildly effective, Iran and China and North Korea are helping Russia, Russia is losing ground and poised to lose all of their gains since this invasion and possibly even into the 2014-era holdings like Crimea, but they're also entirely committed to it and Crimea specifically is a peninsula that will be very hard to take from the outside.

Sunk cost fallacies don't apply when your side has achieved 80%+ of its objectives despite starting out in a situation where a full and immediate loss was expected on all sides. The sunk cost fallacy is actually on Putin's side: just because he had tanks occupying large parts of Ukraine doesn't mean that continuing to fight will ever result in substantial gains again. If anything he's poised to maim every soldier-aged man in his country for nothing.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sunk cost fallacies don’t apply when your side has achieved 80%+ of its objectives

That's precisely how sunk cost fallacy works. You're using past results to justify continuing: it doesn't matter if you had been steadily winning or steadily losing, the sunk cost fallacy comes in to play when you say that your actions to continue or quit are based on that history of winning or losing. You've fallen in to the exact trap of sunk cost fallacy but somehow you think you have managed to avoid it.

Now I'd also agree that sunk cost fallacy could be applied to Putin, but it's simpler than you say. On both sides, identically, the idea that you must keep going because otherwise what you've already done will be wasted effort, is precisely where the fault lies. That is sunk cost fallacy.

[–] zkikiz@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying that Ukraine must continue because they've invested so much into the fight that it would be awful to stop now. That's the core fallacy, that you owe it to all the past pain and effort to keep trying even if things are looking bad: just because you lost a million men getting here doesn't mean you won't suffer total defeat trying to get to the finish line.

What I am saying is that Ukraine would be foolish not to continue because they're in an incredibly strong position with a track record that defies all odds against a weak retreating struggling foe. Now, it's sure possible that Crimea is a hard target full of Russian loyalists ready to fight to the death, but it's also possible that it's full of Ukrainians who are tired of Russian rule and ready to go back to how things were. I can't know, I'm not there.

Don't quit while you're ahead is a very different thing from don't quit because you've given up so much to get this far.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok, that was not how I interpreted it, so thanks for clearing it up. I still disagree with it being justified, but I can't say it's logicaly inconsistent, now it's more about pragmatics and ethics.

What I am saying is that Ukraine would be foolish not to continue because they’re in an incredibly strong position with a track record that defies all odds against a weak retreating struggling foe.

I do understand the notion of continuing when you're ahead, but I think that's only justified if your goal is to "win". If your goal is to end the war, and thus to save human lives, it's still not an acceptable plan of action.

Now, it’s sure possible that Crimea is a hard target full of Russian loyalists ready to fight to the death, but it’s also possible that it’s full of Ukrainians who are tired of Russian rule and ready to go back to how things were. I can’t know, I’m not there.

I think this is rather disingenuous. The 2014 referendum was something like 95% of votes in favor of Russian control. Yes, that was some years ago now, and things can and likely have changed, but that is quite a large margin such that to propose that it has changed in the complete opposite favor would require some solid justification.

I really do feel like I'm talking either in circles or to the void, because my fundamental goal here is: preservation of human life. As such, the only stance I find acceptable is ending the war. I find it fallacious to assume that Ukranian surrender could somehow lead to more loss of life. Just because humans were killed for a "good cause" doesn't mean those deaths were justified. I also find it annoying when people imagine that my assertion that Ukraine's actions are leading to deaths somehow means I think that Russia's actions aren't also; I've not said as much, and the assumption seemingly just serves to attempt to discredit the rest of what I'm saying.

[–] zkikiz@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So do you think the most ethical thing would be to allow Zelinskyy to be assassinated and Putin take control of Ukraine in order that only one person is killed instead of many? Is forcible occupation by a murderous corrupt tyrant not worth fighting against? If I point a gun at you and say "sell me your house for $1 or I'll kill you" do you acquiesce in order to prevent bloodshed?

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

So do you think the most ethical thing would be to allow Zelinskyy to be assassinated and Putin take control of Ukraine in order that only one person is killed instead of many?

He can surrender without being assassinated; there doesn't even have to be one person killed here.

Is forcible occupation by a murderous corrupt tyrant not worth fighting against?

Humans killed in the name of a good cause are still humans who have been killed.

If I point a gun at you and say “sell me your house for $1 or I’ll kill you” do you acquiesce in order to prevent bloodshed?

Yes. This is the same instructions store clerks, bankers, nearly everyone receives and adheres to: if someone is threatening your life, nothing is worth so much that you should rather die than acquiesce.