The Economist featured a new Oped penned by none other than Valery Zaluzhny—Commander-in-Chief of the AFU—himself. He makes some very interesting observations, not to mention one or two startling admissions, regarding the war. The main slant of the article is diagnostic; it’s an attempt to find meaningful ways to reorient the AFU towards a winning direction, with the implied admission that this is

This one sentence from the analysis sums it up:

Overall, the gist of his final prescriptive analysis is that: “we need our army to be a completely different, new army in order to defeat Russia.”

In addition there are a number of interesting admissions made by Ukraine’s top commander such as that time is on Russia’s side.

He also fantasizes about weapons systems which do not yet exist and scifi technology such as tunnel boring plasma bots turning the tide.

As the author of this analysis puts it: The vast majority of his proposal is wishful thinking.

  • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    1 year ago

    You kinda have to though, Americans don’t want an honest assessment of realistic options that are bad, they won’t throw more resources at you if a stalemate is all they’re going to get from it. Beg steal or borrow they need whatever they can get to keep the lights on.

    • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      5·
      1 year ago

      The Americans are getting destroyed Russian equipment and dead russian soldiers for the cost of old military hardware and a small fraction of their military budget. A stalemate is an acceptable situation fror them.

      • the post of tom joad@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        1 year ago

        yeah, i often ponder why countries accept being the patsy in proxy wars like this with the US. Have we ever not abandoned said countries before their goals are met? It can’t be that the leaders are too stupid to realize the US will do it to them, right? it has to be that they are corrupt and profiting as well… Right? Is there data on this? has to be, right?