Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said a ceasefire with Russia without reclaiming lost territories would only prolong the war, according to an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
All the expert opinions I’ve seen have reduced the situation in the east to a stalemate and possible Ukrainian regains in the south. Also, with how much I hear about Ukrainians being very disorganized at the start and with the further lack of any weapons apart from their own, it’s odd to claim the Ukrainian army was at its peak. The Russians seemed to have simply failed miserably trying to take over the entire country quickly.
Which experts are you reading? Western experts in the media are too biased in favour of the Ukrainian side to make accurate predictions.They have been wrong too many times to trust them.
I’ve been absent. Also, I’m going to half ignore your request for non-western sources by concentrating on the Finnish ones with very brief translations or explanations. I was not able to find the main source I was looking for, but this will do for now.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12540078
Finnish major general and former chief of intelligence, Pekka Toveri:
“Russia dominates by numbers, but Ukraine’s western arsenal is more modern and neither have the resources to solve the situation.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12314941/64-3-94534
Senior researcher at the Finnish National Defence University, Jukka Viitaniemi on the chances of Ukraine getting back southern regions:
“Yes, in light of recent events, considering the weapons and aid they’ve received. I would say it’s entirely possible and even probable. I would give it around a 50-70% chance, I can’t say with a 100% that this would happen.”
On the chances of taking back Crimea:
“In optimal conditions, yes.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12521889
Swedish Military University docent Ilmari Käihkö:
“Most observers agree that both sides will run out of troops over summer.”
If you mean YLE, then you need not worry. They’re not any different to any other news outlet in Finland except there site is less cancerous and they seem to write about opposing views a little more than others.
How much of territories Ukrain returned back to its control? Ukrain has a few tactical wins, like sinking down russian ship(s) and repell Russians from an island. But what are strategical gains since April?
From what I’ve seen, apart from Snake Island, they’ve made small gains at the very edges of the battle line but lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle. From what I’ve read, they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now and have been urging Ukrainians to evacuate from occupied territories before the real battles commence as it’ll get ugly. They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992 ( English wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine ). Would it be 10 000 of tanks, yep, that definitely might change the situation drastically.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
Correct. My understanding is that the situation in the east is at stalemate in large part due to the new HIMAR systems cutting supply lines. Right now, post-north regains, Ukraine seems to have lost fair bit more than it has gained.
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously. They may end up being correct, but I’m going to rely on the Finnish military experts instead which have been accurate in all accounts except calling that Putin wouldn’t invade.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992
There’s no way Ukraine had 6500 properly operational tanks and what you cite is from 1992. 200 simply is substantial. Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be. It’s a truck with a rocket launcher attached to it. So far there is absolutely zero indication that HIMARS are making any actual difference, nor is there any reason to expect them to.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
That’s not my analysis, it’s the anaylsis of pretty much every military expert out there. If you can’t see that Ukraine is losing the war, then you’re living in an alternate reality. I wonder if you will be capable of doing any self reflection once Ukraine loses the war.
Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
Russia has actual industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition. Ukraine and the west do not. This isn’t my assessment, this is what British military think tank states.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be.
You are right when you compare HIMARS with other Russian/Soviet MLRS. The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon. Ukraine don’t have such a missiles for now, at least officially, as far as I know.
Russia demostrated recently that it can successully intercept 100% of them with S-400 anti-air weapon.
The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon.
The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren’t going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it’s not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.
As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.
In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They’re being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it’s just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.
Tanks are useless if you don’t have air superiority. They will just get blown up. Same with artillery. You can’t go on the offensive without controlling the skies.
Ukraine’s only real advantage is the Bayraktar drone.
Show me a single actual expert, as in a person with military or logistics experience, saying there’s going to be some kind of a stalemate. Ukrainians were organized and trained to NATO standard at the start. If you think they were disorganized at the start, I can guarantee you they’re far less organized today.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
It’s also pretty clear that Russia was prepared for a protracted conflict given that they had all the supplies and logistics figured out ahead of time. They wouldn’t have been able to sustain the pace of war otherwise.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine built up layered defences on the contact line at Donbas over the past 8 years of the civil war. Russians along with DPR and LPR are now systematically taking those defences apart. And we’re now seeing the pace of the war accelerating as these defences are being broken through.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
The actual article doesn’t say what business insider claims though when taken in context. It clearly talks about the ongoing fighting and simply states reunification with Ukrain being the end result
However, even if we go with the business insider narrative, the fact that it was written isn’t really surprising. This stuff is always written ahead of time. For example, US had a story ready for the case if Apollo mission went wrong.
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Please do enlighten us what these weird claims are specifically.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
Russia sends a few people to stir trouble and they manage to fight the whole Ukrainian army for eight years. Russia must have some real Übermensch.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
Of course the whole world is suffering, and none of us know exactly what’s happening. However, it’s possible to get a general picture of how the events are unfolding and what to expect.
People still plugged in to lib media are so used to being gaslit that they always assume if your analysis points to the success of a side, you obviously support that side and have a vested interest in them “winning”. Gorbachev, as naive and fucking incompetent as he is, is correct that Russian socialism is dead and Putin is standing at the helm of a conservative wing of the bourgeoisie.
Reactionary anti-imperialists like the Russian Federation’s govt aren’t going to further the goals of communism. No one will “win” this war. It’s a prerequisite to a shift in power, our Bosnian Crisis heralding much larger conflict that may kill all of us, and I don’t think anyone here is mentally prepared for the buildup, removal of personal freedoms, and propaganda that will be built up in the interwar period.
Russia has effectively introduced a catalyst into a near-homogenous solution of American Imperialism. The precipitants falling out of it will form a new iron curtain around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Forum. With China, Russia, Iran, and possibly India forming the core of the group as they persuade neocolonies of western powers to dedollarize their economies.
The other side will be AUKUS, its Euro hostages, and some groupings of former British/French colonies who still believe in the NATO project for some reason. America is the most worrying of all, due to its refusal to ascribe to a No-First Strike policy and the increasing number of reactionaries saying a “small nuclear war” wouldn’t be so bad.
That’s basically where we’re at now. Completely agree that the world is breaking up into two major economic bloc, one being BRICS around China and the other being the western bloc around US. It’s also clear that BRICS has a much stronger industrial base, and that it’s where most productive growth will be happening.
Since US bloc is in active decline right now, the situation is indeed highly volatile. US is becoming increasingly desperate and trying ever more risky gambles in their attempts to contain China and to prevent their colonies from developing independently. As US continues to get more desperate, a possibility of a nuclear conflict looms ever closer.
One of the major goals with provoking Russia into a war was to cause an economic collapse there in hopes of breaking it up. Russia provides China with the resources and food that China needs, making it impossible for US to blockade China. A secondary goal was to cleave Europe from the east economically and politically. I would say this goal has been achieved, at least in the short term. As the economic situation in Europe becomes more desperate this may reverse.
Now that the gamble in Ukraine failed, US will likely focus on provoking a conflict in Taiwan next. There are already signs of this happening right now. US military think tanks state that the window for military action against China is closing, and that China will reach parity within a few years. Others argue that this has already happened given that US loses all their simulated war games in South China Sea. Either way, US has to act it soon or secede its role of a global hegemon.
I’m not a huge fan of continuing the BRICS acronym, simply on the basis that Brazil and South Africa don’t seem to be aligned in any particular direction. The US isn’t concerned about Lula so it seems like they’ll be more of an independent regional power for now.
AMLO seems to be signalling a shifting political climate in Mexico. That could get pretty hairy in the future, esp if they start to consider CELAC membership more important than their ties to North America.
Yeah, BRICS isn’t really descriptive and now with Iran and a few other countries likely to join it’s even less accurate. It does look like the current members do have strong economic ties that will be built on going forward. Where it’s going to have the most meaning is around having its own reserve currency based on the basket of member currencies. This is one of the biggest threats to US economically.
What’s happening in Mexico is very interesting, and it’s looking like left wing governments are starting to appear all over Latin America. This is an unprecedented situation. Previously, US only had to deal with a one or two adversaries in the region and they could easily choke them economically leading to regime change. However, now we have Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, Cuba, and likely Brazil in the near future. All of these countries are starting working to work together and reinforce each other. Meanwhile, China and Russia are providing them with trade opportunities that were previously closed off. This is a large scale disaster for US imperialism.
"The ineffectiveness of the campaign is so clear, and the ferociousness of the Ukrainian defence is so obvious … (that) it’s created an equalizer where neither side can move much from where they are now.”
“The damage and devastation to Ukrainian cities is likely to increase even in a period of stalemate,”
Frederick W. Kagan. senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. former professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Married to Kimberly Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War.
All the expert opinions I’ve seen have reduced the situation in the east to a stalemate and possible Ukrainian regains in the south. Also, with how much I hear about Ukrainians being very disorganized at the start and with the further lack of any weapons apart from their own, it’s odd to claim the Ukrainian army was at its peak. The Russians seemed to have simply failed miserably trying to take over the entire country quickly.
Which experts are you reading? Western experts in the media are too biased in favour of the Ukrainian side to make accurate predictions.They have been wrong too many times to trust them.
I’ve been absent. Also, I’m going to half ignore your request for non-western sources by concentrating on the Finnish ones with very brief translations or explanations. I was not able to find the main source I was looking for, but this will do for now.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12540078 Finnish major general and former chief of intelligence, Pekka Toveri: “Russia dominates by numbers, but Ukraine’s western arsenal is more modern and neither have the resources to solve the situation.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12526593 Toveri: Essentially the same as above, but with various different additional comments.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12314941/64-3-94534 Senior researcher at the Finnish National Defence University, Jukka Viitaniemi on the chances of Ukraine getting back southern regions: “Yes, in light of recent events, considering the weapons and aid they’ve received. I would say it’s entirely possible and even probable. I would give it around a 50-70% chance, I can’t say with a 100% that this would happen.”
On the chances of taking back Crimea: “In optimal conditions, yes.”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12521889 Swedish Military University docent Ilmari Käihkö: “Most observers agree that both sides will run out of troops over summer.”
https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/b94134db-060b-41ba-8d40-a70d8db559f1 Essentially the same as above, but with a fleshed out interview.
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/a/asiantuntija-hehkuttaa-himars-jarjestelmaa-ukraina-voi-kaantaa-edun-itselleen/#48cc421d Finnish Military University, Military Professor Marko Palokangas: A lot of praise for the effectiveness of HIMARS.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/07/russia-ukraine-war-update-what-we-know-on-day-134-of-the-invasion I’ve excluded Ukrainian and Russian sources as I mostly ignore them, but it’s worth mentioning they’ve described the HIMAR systems as “game changers”.
https://nitter.it/MarkHertling/status/1551668596803358724#m HIMARS and MLRS differences and why they matter from a former US army officer.
Most of these are government or almost-government sources. I am very skeptical about such sources given the enourmous pro-Ukrainian bias.
If you mean YLE, then you need not worry. They’re not any different to any other news outlet in Finland except there site is less cancerous and they seem to write about opposing views a little more than others.
How much of territories Ukrain returned back to its control? Ukrain has a few tactical wins, like sinking down russian ship(s) and repell Russians from an island. But what are strategical gains since April?
From what I’ve seen, apart from Snake Island, they’ve made small gains at the very edges of the battle line but lost a City at the heart of the eastern battle. From what I’ve read, they’re trying to form a bigger counteroffensive right now and have been urging Ukrainians to evacuate from occupied territories before the real battles commence as it’ll get ugly. They’re also getting another big batch of tanks from Poland.
Actually, it is quite a large port-city Mariupol, and a few minor cities like Lisitchansk and SeveroDonetsk. As the result whole territory of LPR is deoccupied from Ukraine (or lost by Ukraine). It is quite a strategic win of Russia, isn’t it?
It is not fair to compare “plans” with “gains”. Every side might have big plans, but from military point of view it is better to compare initiative and territorial gains.
The amount of tanks is about 200, as I’ve heard. It is actually quite a few number, as Ukrain had about 6’500 of them in 1992 ( English wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine ). Would it be 10 000 of tanks, yep, that definitely might change the situation drastically.
Correct. My understanding is that the situation in the east is at stalemate in large part due to the new HIMAR systems cutting supply lines. Right now, post-north regains, Ukraine seems to have lost fair bit more than it has gained.
This is true, but I believe it gives important and timely context as to why Ukraine could be on the back foot at the moment, and why Yogthos’ knee-jerk doomsday analysis shouldn’t be taken too seriously. They may end up being correct, but I’m going to rely on the Finnish military experts instead which have been accurate in all accounts except calling that Putin wouldn’t invade.
There’s no way Ukraine had 6500 properly operational tanks and what you cite is from 1992. 200 simply is substantial. Furthermore, my understanding is that ammunition is what Ukraine lacks for their older weaponry, while Russia has stockpiles upon stockpiles of it.
You do realize that Ukraine had hundreds of MLRS systems before they got HIMARS right? There is nothing magical about HIMARS, it’s not some wunderwaffen that western media makes it out to be. It’s a truck with a rocket launcher attached to it. So far there is absolutely zero indication that HIMARS are making any actual difference, nor is there any reason to expect them to.
That’s not my analysis, it’s the anaylsis of pretty much every military expert out there. If you can’t see that Ukraine is losing the war, then you’re living in an alternate reality. I wonder if you will be capable of doing any self reflection once Ukraine loses the war.
Russia has actual industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition. Ukraine and the west do not. This isn’t my assessment, this is what British military think tank states.
You are right when you compare HIMARS with other Russian/Soviet MLRS. The difference comes with NATO satelite’s targeting / highlighting. Together with long-range missiles (300 km) it can be serious weapon. Ukraine don’t have such a missiles for now, at least officially, as far as I know.
Russia demostrated recently that it can successully intercept 100% of them with S-400 anti-air weapon.
The issue is with the volumes of these systems. 12 missile launchers aren’t going to make a significant difference in the war. Russia has hundreds of comparable systems with satellite/drone targeting. Furthermore, HIMARS are meant to be used as part of a combined arms force. US and Russia integrate these systems with things like air support, artillery and so on. This is what allows them to be effective. If you just roll it out on the battlefield all on its own, then it’s not going to last long. There are already reports that Russia destroyed anywhere from 2-4 of the HIMARS shipped to Ukraine.
As you point out, Russian air defence is also able to intercept these. Ukraine demonstrated that they can get some through by doing saturation fire, but that depletes their stocks of ammunition very quickly.
In my opinion, HIMARS are just cover for the fact that the west is unable to supply Ukraine with enough heavy weapons and ammunition. They’re being sold as a game changer the same way M777s were, but in practice it’s just a distraction. This is primarily an artillery war, and Russia has massive superiority in their artillery capability.
I completely agree with you, that HIMARS in the current amounts cannot play game changing role.
Tanks are useless if you don’t have air superiority. They will just get blown up. Same with artillery. You can’t go on the offensive without controlling the skies.
Ukraine’s only real advantage is the Bayraktar drone.
Bayraktars proved to be a big joke.
Moskva disagrees.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yTIQUg18C0k
Show me a single actual expert, as in a person with military or logistics experience, saying there’s going to be some kind of a stalemate. Ukrainians were organized and trained to NATO standard at the start. If you think they were disorganized at the start, I can guarantee you they’re far less organized today.
The Russians never made any claims about taking over the country quickly. This was a narrative created by the west that had no basis in reality. Feel free to show me a single statement from Russia claiming anything of the sort being the goal.
It’s also pretty clear that Russia was prepared for a protracted conflict given that they had all the supplies and logistics figured out ahead of time. They wouldn’t have been able to sustain the pace of war otherwise.
What’s actually happening is that Ukraine built up layered defences on the contact line at Donbas over the past 8 years of the civil war. Russians along with DPR and LPR are now systematically taking those defences apart. And we’re now seeing the pace of the war accelerating as these defences are being broken through.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published-an-article-saying-russia-defeated-ukraine-2022-2
you’re arguing with ppl who are clearly taking hopium in regards to how much Ukraine can sustain or how well Ukraine is doing but you’re also making weird claims that makes me think you’re dabbling in hopium for how well Russia is doing.
Also the “civil war” you keep bringing up is kinda weird since Russia would obviously send in people to stir trouble so they can claim they must save Ukrainians like Russia and the US did\do in the Middle East, Latin America, etc all the time.
the truth is none of us know wtf is actually going down but its clear all sides have people suffering and the worlds fuel and food supply is getting fucked with so no one everyone is suffering (except China is prolly getting a ton of super cheap fuel from Russia and learning what not to do when they try to take Taiwan)
The actual article doesn’t say what business insider claims though when taken in context. It clearly talks about the ongoing fighting and simply states reunification with Ukrain being the end result
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
However, even if we go with the business insider narrative, the fact that it was written isn’t really surprising. This stuff is always written ahead of time. For example, US had a story ready for the case if Apollo mission went wrong.
Please do enlighten us what these weird claims are specifically.
Russia sends a few people to stir trouble and they manage to fight the whole Ukrainian army for eight years. Russia must have some real Übermensch.
Of course the whole world is suffering, and none of us know exactly what’s happening. However, it’s possible to get a general picture of how the events are unfolding and what to expect.
People still plugged in to lib media are so used to being gaslit that they always assume if your analysis points to the success of a side, you obviously support that side and have a vested interest in them “winning”. Gorbachev, as naive and fucking incompetent as he is, is correct that Russian socialism is dead and Putin is standing at the helm of a conservative wing of the bourgeoisie.
Reactionary anti-imperialists like the Russian Federation’s govt aren’t going to further the goals of communism. No one will “win” this war. It’s a prerequisite to a shift in power, our Bosnian Crisis heralding much larger conflict that may kill all of us, and I don’t think anyone here is mentally prepared for the buildup, removal of personal freedoms, and propaganda that will be built up in the interwar period.
Russia has effectively introduced a catalyst into a near-homogenous solution of American Imperialism. The precipitants falling out of it will form a new iron curtain around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Belt and Road Forum. With China, Russia, Iran, and possibly India forming the core of the group as they persuade neocolonies of western powers to dedollarize their economies.
The other side will be AUKUS, its Euro hostages, and some groupings of former British/French colonies who still believe in the NATO project for some reason. America is the most worrying of all, due to its refusal to ascribe to a No-First Strike policy and the increasing number of reactionaries saying a “small nuclear war” wouldn’t be so bad.
That’s basically where we’re at now. Completely agree that the world is breaking up into two major economic bloc, one being BRICS around China and the other being the western bloc around US. It’s also clear that BRICS has a much stronger industrial base, and that it’s where most productive growth will be happening.
Since US bloc is in active decline right now, the situation is indeed highly volatile. US is becoming increasingly desperate and trying ever more risky gambles in their attempts to contain China and to prevent their colonies from developing independently. As US continues to get more desperate, a possibility of a nuclear conflict looms ever closer.
One of the major goals with provoking Russia into a war was to cause an economic collapse there in hopes of breaking it up. Russia provides China with the resources and food that China needs, making it impossible for US to blockade China. A secondary goal was to cleave Europe from the east economically and politically. I would say this goal has been achieved, at least in the short term. As the economic situation in Europe becomes more desperate this may reverse.
Now that the gamble in Ukraine failed, US will likely focus on provoking a conflict in Taiwan next. There are already signs of this happening right now. US military think tanks state that the window for military action against China is closing, and that China will reach parity within a few years. Others argue that this has already happened given that US loses all their simulated war games in South China Sea. Either way, US has to act it soon or secede its role of a global hegemon.
I’m not a huge fan of continuing the BRICS acronym, simply on the basis that Brazil and South Africa don’t seem to be aligned in any particular direction. The US isn’t concerned about Lula so it seems like they’ll be more of an independent regional power for now.
AMLO seems to be signalling a shifting political climate in Mexico. That could get pretty hairy in the future, esp if they start to consider CELAC membership more important than their ties to North America.
Yeah, BRICS isn’t really descriptive and now with Iran and a few other countries likely to join it’s even less accurate. It does look like the current members do have strong economic ties that will be built on going forward. Where it’s going to have the most meaning is around having its own reserve currency based on the basket of member currencies. This is one of the biggest threats to US economically.
What’s happening in Mexico is very interesting, and it’s looking like left wing governments are starting to appear all over Latin America. This is an unprecedented situation. Previously, US only had to deal with a one or two adversaries in the region and they could easily choke them economically leading to regime change. However, now we have Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Mexico, Cuba, and likely Brazil in the near future. All of these countries are starting working to work together and reinforce each other. Meanwhile, China and Russia are providing them with trade opportunities that were previously closed off. This is a large scale disaster for US imperialism.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8710682/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate/
"The ineffectiveness of the campaign is so clear, and the ferociousness of the Ukrainian defence is so obvious … (that) it’s created an equalizer where neither side can move much from where they are now.”
“The damage and devastation to Ukrainian cities is likely to increase even in a period of stalemate,”
Frederick W. Kagan. senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. former professor of military history at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Married to Kimberly Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War.
This article is all the way back from March, show me anybody claiming anything of the sort today.