this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
19 points (82.8% liked)
politics
22336 readers
523 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to [email protected].
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or [email protected].
[email protected] is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please explain why you think sending a big chunk of Ukraine's best troops to open a front in another country that they will almost assuredly eventually lose, all while Ukraine is currently losing ground on fronts within their own borders, ostensibly helps continue "Ukrainians as a people unto themselves with the right to self-determination"?
It's called tactics! I've played Risk a bunch of times, and everyone knows you plow through north Asia, then try to sneak a bunch of troops in to hold Australia or South America until the end of the game. By expanding the size of the front, you always get a huge advantage over your better supplied and more heavily armored opposition.
Also, it makes for some AMAZING HEADLINES as NAFO liberals get gassed up on the idea of Ukrainian troops marching into Moscow before winter.
I'm not a military strategist. I'm not gonna weigh in on that. But I'm not about to tell folks how to defend their homes in the face of an invader.
Well that sucks, because that's what article is about.
It's literally not. That's one argument they make, but the article is about the West pressuring Ukraine to continue fighting. I'm fairly certain they'd continue fighting regardless.
As insurgents, maybe. I doubt they'd be sending cruise missiles over the border if the US wasn't passing them out.
Okay, the 30 paragraphs about the military situation must've been a typo then.
lmao