Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

The "passive and active" "killed/died" voice thing is one that while I understand it in theory very often seems a little "read-too-much-into-it" forced to me, at least when "died" is used in context of a sentence that reveals that it was somebody who killed them (ie the difference between "three died during concert" and "three died in fight" – my assumption of the first isn't that they were killed, but for the second it is the default assumption because of the context). But I may be influenced by how in Swedish, the word (or rather its direct cognate I guess) die is not just something a person does themselves but directly tied to killing – we say that "he deaded him" when we say "he killed him" for example.

[Loud Whispers]

in Swedish, the word (or rather its direct cognate I guess) die is not just something a person does themselves but directly tied to killing – we say that "he deaded him" when we say "he killed him" for example.

that's an adorable bit of language

I do wonder if this was not too different in English 1,000 years ago. I'm not an expert in Old English but I do know they had two verbs for "to die/is dying" and one of them "swelt" has only barely survived today as "sweltering heat." And they share a lot of common ancestral roots with other germanic languages that became stuff like Danish, Swedish, Dutch e.t.c.

One of the interesting things is that in the last 500 years print has shifted favour from listing people "is dead" to "killed" or "has died." Idk why but some time around the age of enlightenment people started writing death as a state in the past indicating a change of state rather than a continuous state moving into the present

[Egan_BW]

Lots of things are dead or made out of things which are dead, so I guess it's less exhausting to just say "this structure has died and let's not worry too much about what it is now."
After all, all of you was once chemicals which were in something that died. Are you dead? If not, death is something in the past.

[King Zultan]

Everything is ether dead or dying.

Also what's happening with this war haven't really seen any info recently with the current shit going on in the middle east.

[Strongpoint]

Everything is ether dead or dying.

Also what's happening with this war haven't really seen any info recently with the current shit going on in the middle east.

Nothing much. War of attrition with bloody push-pull on the frontline + constant missile\drone strikes (Like a few hours ago a large swarm of drones attacked Kyiv). War of attrition that Russia is clearly winning because they have more of... well... everything.

[Starver]

Well, they had to hold off on many days of 'standard' drone attacks in order to launch the recent "mass attack" on Kiev. They're so short of missiles that they need Iranian drones. They're so self-insufficient in other areas that they had to butter up Kim.

They "attritionising" Ukraine, but it seems they're not "unattritioned" themselves (they're even going back to recruiting from their own prison populations, with or without the Wagner touch, it seems, as well as conscripting active/prominant anti-'SVO' individuals). They must be hiding much of it, that we're even seeing what signs of it that we see.

Mother Russia is hurting, I am fairly sure. If we can (in what ways we can) assuage Ukraine's own pains then I can see it not being as hopeless as some interpretations might go as far to say. Winter is probably going to be as much an enemy as the 'glorious' forces sent in by Moscow. And to them as well.

[MaxTheFox]

The West just needs to be more bold. America alone has far more industrial capacity than Russia, even leaving aside Europe which is closer. Don't be wimps, Putin won't fire nukes unless tanks roll up into Russia (probably don't do that).

[MorleyDev]

Cynically, Ukraine making slow plodding attrition-based steps, keeping them just 'topped up' enough to keep the grind going, may be the Wests 'optimal' result. No sudden breakthrough making Russia panic, just a slow withdrawal as they exhaust their equipment capabilities and cripple themselves whilst keeping Western stockpiles high.

[Strongpoint]

While there are many good people who sincerely wish Ukraine victory and do a lot for it to happen(including politicians), I am very confident that "elites", "averaged political will" if you wish, have zero interest in any kind of Ukrainian victory.

I thought that the West is just too careful, too uncoordinated, and too unprepared. Looking back, I am now sure that It is a deliberate well-calculated strategy to give us just enough (in small doses) so we don't collapse but don't give too much so we can't accidentally win.

End goal? Grind Russia to a point when it will agree to stop keeping whatever it managed to capture and return to business as usual but negotiate more profitable deals because Russia is somewhat weakened.

But the funniest thing is that Russia doesn't even get weaker.

They have more motivated battle-hardened experienced troops than they had before the invasion.

They did spend a lot of hardware stockpiled over decades but they are steadily increasing production and will replace it rather quickly. In a way, they made modernization of their armed forces easier.

Their economy is steadily growing.

The internal stability of Russia is also absolutely fine. Dissent is nearly non-existent.

I don't know what kind of Black Swan is needed for Ukraine to approach anything resembling victory... Well, whatever, our moral duty is to kill as many of them as we can and don't bother about stuff we can't change. All of the world is going to hell anyway, we are just among those in the front seats

[MaxTheFox]

See, the issue with that plan is, as you said, it's not weakening Russia enough. At this rate even "grinding out" Russia won't work out in any reasonable timeframe, so it's not working. The people currently in charge in most countries are selfish and greedy, yes. But not that many are truly stupid. If Russia gets too strong then more aid will come, I suppose.

Or, at least, I hope. Without hope a person is nothing.

[hedgerow]

Man you wanna know what I read on my laptop.

Oil Spill

We wouldn't really suffer the smell of skunkfish this late in the year though.

[Lord Shonus]

I thought that the West is just too careful, too uncoordinated, and too unprepared. Looking back, I am now sure that It is a deliberate well-calculated strategy to give us just enough (in small doses) so we don't collapse but don't give too much so we can't accidentally win.

You're vastly overestimating how deep Western stockpiles of a lot of critical munitions are and how much it actually takes to spin production up. Most of the munitions that Ukraine badly needs have spent the last thirty years or more at production levels suitable only for training, which is just enough to expend shells and rockets that are hitting their expiration dates. Even if you could get taxpayers to sign off on it, you rapidly run out of places to put the things. Making things worse, all of NATO's warplans expected a short war - if WW3 ever kicked off, it was generally assumed that the war would be over in six to nine months max even without nukes - this kind of two year war that's clearly stabilizing to where it could easily last another two was considered literally impossible. Western governments have already spent literally billions of dollars expanding ammunition production, but it isn't as simple as just turning up a production dial - a lot of hardware has to actually be assembled, workers need to be hired, raw materials need to be allocated, etc.

An all-up shooting war uses up material in ludicrous quantities. In the short time that Ukraine has had ATACMS missiles they've probably already fired more in combat than the US has fired in combat or training since the things were invented. It is probable that more 6" class artillery shells have been fired by Ukraine in this war than the US has fired since Vietnam, possibly even since WWII. The same is true about just about every munition system that's seeing action, even discounting the handful of prototypes that haven't even made it to US service yet. And the stocks are getting worryingly low - enough so that many non-US NATO partners are starting to hit the "what if WE get into a war and have nothing to fight with" level.

[anewaname]

This fight was never going to be won through conventional means (because of the differences in production and manpower, and because those sources of production and manpower couldn't be effectively attacked), it was always going to be won through other means and those other means haven't presented themselves yet.

When the aggressor in a war is unable to progress, it is they who are losing, and it won't be long before the news media stops spinning "Ukraine counterattack stalemating", and starts with "you know, Russia hasn't progressed at all this year, and they started this war". Russia will continue to stockpile manpower or weapons, so they can attempt overwhelming attacks like the recent ones at Kiev and Avdiivka, precisely because they need a win this year. Presumably, the Russian's will find the Ukrainians are dug in as deep as the Russians are.

There is an authoritarian push for dominance in multiple "democratic" nations, and those political battles need to play out.

[MaxTheFox]

This fight was never going to be won through conventional means (because of the differences in production and manpower, and because those sources of production and manpower couldn't be effectively attacked), it was always going to be won through other means and those other means haven't presented themselves yet.

When the aggressor in a war is unable to progress, it is they who are losing, and it won't be long before the news media stops spinning "Ukraine counterattack stalemating", and starts with "you know, Russia hasn't progressed at all this year, and they started this war". Russia will continue to stockpile manpower or weapons, so they can attempt overwhelming attacks like the recent ones at Kiev and Avdiivka, precisely because they need a win this year. Presumably, the Russian's will find the Ukrainians are dug in as deep as the Russians are.

There is an authoritarian push for dominance in multiple "democratic" nations, and those political battles need to play out.

[Strongpoint]

I thought that the West is just too careful, too uncoordinated, and too unprepared. Looking back, I am now sure that It is a deliberate well-calculated strategy to give us just enough (in small doses) so we don't collapse but don't give too much so we can't accidentally win.

You're vastly overestimating how deep Western stockpiles of a lot of critical munitions are and how much it actually takes to spin production up. Most of the munitions that Ukraine badly needs have spent the last thirty years or more at production levels suitable only for training, which is just enough to expend shells and rockets that are hitting their expiration dates. Even if you could get taxpayers to sign off on it, you rapidly run out of places to put the things. Making things worse, all of NATO's warplans expected a short war - if WW3 ever kicked off, it was generally assumed that the war would be over in six to nine months max even without nukes

It doesn't explain the dosage of things the West already had in stockpiles. There are no non-political reasons why we couldn't get, for example, cluster munitions earlier. Or Slovakian\Polish Mig-29s. Or cruise missiles to hit Russian logistics. Having those earlier would save lives, having those earlier would not give Russians time to build fortifications.

Also, almost two years has passed. I fail to believe that, having sufficient political will, the West couldn't significantly ramp up their military production.

As I said, it is not like there are no good people in the West who want us to win. But I am confident that there are groups that actively work against us, who like this bloody status quo and averaged "political will" is not directed toward Ukrainian victory.