MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world
on 31 Jul 2024 12:22
nextcollapse
The Conversation Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)
### The Conversation is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: Australia
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
> Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Carrolade@lemmy.world
on 31 Jul 2024 12:52
nextcollapse
the path Biden has set – policies that, so far, have only prevented Ukraine from losing without providing it with a path to military victory.
Hogwash.
Ukraine has a path to victory, the political collapse of Russia’s top leadership or them finally running their expansive saved-up war chest and stockpiles of Soviet kit dry.
What is not a viable path to victory is some imaginary scenario where Ukraine accomplishes what Hitler and Napoleon could not, and manages to fully capitulate Russia through military might. That’s woefully unrealistic and would face the nightmare of a land war in Asia, and likely Russian use of tactical nukes against enemy forces on their own land, as put forward in their own doctrine.
So, the grinding path is actually the only path, and there was never any possible Ukrainian victory scenario where this war would go for any less than several years. We are currently at two, that is not very many.
Not that Ukraine needs to pursue victory, if they wish to cede territory for peace, I understand and respect that. The decision should be theirs, though, and we should stand behind them until they make it of their own free will.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com
on 31 Jul 2024 17:26
collapse
A political collapse would be a lot more like likely if Russians had to worry about bombs falling on them.
Edit: I chose my words poorly. I’m talking about things like infrastructure. Russians might support the war less if they’re sitting in the dark.
Carrolade@lemmy.world
on 01 Aug 2024 13:22
nextcollapse
Political collapse, no, not really. Strategic bombing doesn’t tend to have that sort of effect, people get upset at the folks dropping the actual bombs. Economic, yes, though. They should be allowed to strike hydrocarbon and military production infrastructure.
I mean, ultimately, innocent people would still die. I think focusing on military and government targets is the way to go, ideally
lolcatnip@reddthat.com
on 02 Aug 2024 01:58
collapse
Civilians die in war. That’s very different from targeting civilians. Putin made that choice when he chose war. If you want Ukraine to avoid all civilian casualties, they’re going to be stuck doing what they’ve been doing all along, fighting a war of attrition on their own territory.
Sure, I get that, but if you start bombing civilian infrastructure, you just harm innocent civilians - in particular, the most vulnerable people - and you don’t really do anything to erode public support for the war. If anything it builds public support - it gives the people an enemy in you, rather than in their leaders.
I assure you that bombing Russian civilian infrastructure isn’t going to make the war go any faster. Providing equipment, training and personnel to the war effort and focusing on the military targets in the actual war zone is what would make the war end more quickly.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com
on 02 Aug 2024 16:15
collapse
Well, I’ll take your word for it since you and other other saying similar things are getting all the votes. It’s not someone I’ve paid that much attention to, seeing as how I’ll never be in a position to influence decisions at that level of detail.
The main thing for me is I wish Ukraine were given free rein to fight back as they see fit. I trust them more than myself to make good strategic decisions.
Ehm, the Germans got bombed into oblivion. It was quite effective.
Ropianos@feddit.org
on 01 Aug 2024 21:19
nextcollapse
Effective at what? Germany capitulated only once it was almost fully occupied (e.g. Berlin, Rhineland). The bombs might have helped by binding resources and demoralizing the population but that didn’t affect the capitulation directly.
Entire swathes of Europe were decimated by bombing. Look at Coventry, or London. Did that dissuade the fighting spirit of Britain? Not even a bit. If anything, it galvanised resolve. Strategic bombing just turns innocent people into enemies who have a reason to get revenge.
The above commenter’s statement is edit technically true.
Half the country is not ready for land concessions. A third is ready for land concessions. The remainder does not have an opinion fitting those two groups neatly.
However, the statement “2/3 of the country…” Is true, as all people NOT in the 1/3 are NOT ready for land concessions.
Edit the 47-52% line represents the grey area not within the 1/3, edit and is entangled with NATO membership, which somewhat confounds the earlier 1/3 discussion.
threaded - newest
The Conversation Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [**High**] (Click to view Full Report)
### The Conversation is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check. > Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: Australia
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
> Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports. Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Hogwash.
Ukraine has a path to victory, the political collapse of Russia’s top leadership or them finally running their expansive saved-up war chest and stockpiles of Soviet kit dry.
What is not a viable path to victory is some imaginary scenario where Ukraine accomplishes what Hitler and Napoleon could not, and manages to fully capitulate Russia through military might. That’s woefully unrealistic and would face the nightmare of a land war in Asia, and likely Russian use of tactical nukes against enemy forces on their own land, as put forward in their own doctrine.
So, the grinding path is actually the only path, and there was never any possible Ukrainian victory scenario where this war would go for any less than several years. We are currently at two, that is not very many.
Not that Ukraine needs to pursue victory, if they wish to cede territory for peace, I understand and respect that. The decision should be theirs, though, and we should stand behind them until they make it of their own free will.
A political collapse would be a lot more like likely if Russians had to worry about bombs falling on them.
Edit: I chose my words poorly. I’m talking about things like infrastructure. Russians might support the war less if they’re sitting in the dark.
Political collapse, no, not really. Strategic bombing doesn’t tend to have that sort of effect, people get upset at the folks dropping the actual bombs. Economic, yes, though. They should be allowed to strike hydrocarbon and military production infrastructure.
“Strategic bombing”, also known as the mass murder of innocent people, has been known to be ineffective for nearly a century.
I’m not calling for mass murder of civilians. More like taking out infrastructure.
I mean, ultimately, innocent people would still die. I think focusing on military and government targets is the way to go, ideally
Civilians die in war. That’s very different from targeting civilians. Putin made that choice when he chose war. If you want Ukraine to avoid all civilian casualties, they’re going to be stuck doing what they’ve been doing all along, fighting a war of attrition on their own territory.
Sure, I get that, but if you start bombing civilian infrastructure, you just harm innocent civilians - in particular, the most vulnerable people - and you don’t really do anything to erode public support for the war. If anything it builds public support - it gives the people an enemy in you, rather than in their leaders.
I assure you that bombing Russian civilian infrastructure isn’t going to make the war go any faster. Providing equipment, training and personnel to the war effort and focusing on the military targets in the actual war zone is what would make the war end more quickly.
Well, I’ll take your word for it since you and other other saying similar things are getting all the votes. It’s not someone I’ve paid that much attention to, seeing as how I’ll never be in a position to influence decisions at that level of detail.
The main thing for me is I wish Ukraine were given free rein to fight back as they see fit. I trust them more than myself to make good strategic decisions.
Ehm, the Germans got bombed into oblivion. It was quite effective.
Effective at what? Germany capitulated only once it was almost fully occupied (e.g. Berlin, Rhineland). The bombs might have helped by binding resources and demoralizing the population but that didn’t affect the capitulation directly.
Entire swathes of Europe were decimated by bombing. Look at Coventry, or London. Did that dissuade the fighting spirit of Britain? Not even a bit. If anything, it galvanised resolve. Strategic bombing just turns innocent people into enemies who have a reason to get revenge.
I just had a quick look. What territory did they lose in 2004?
I got the years confused, you can disregard my whole comment.
So two thirds of the country would not give up land for peace.
Also, the reason why so few would agree to what isn’t that simple is because Russia would never respect whatever peace was agreed to.
Yeah, I think the third that would capitulate are short-sighted fools. That tracks, since it seems like about a third of any population is like that.
A third of the US would probably like to bring back Jim Crow laws.
Please, read article before commenting strong opinions. Half of the country, not two thirds.
The above commenter’s statement is edit technically true.
Half the country is not ready for land concessions. A third is ready for land concessions. The remainder does not have an opinion fitting those two groups neatly.
However, the statement “2/3 of the country…” Is true, as all people NOT in the 1/3 are NOT ready for land concessions.
Edit the 47-52% line represents the grey area not within the 1/3, edit and is entangled with NATO membership, which somewhat confounds the earlier 1/3 discussion.
My point is to encourage ppl to read. Too many illiterates influencing this world out there.
I hate lazy journalists. ‘Now Beijing’s position is now…’ ‘China advocates for ending the ceasefire…’ !!! 🤯