It’s interesting to see what I think is the social media-induced sense of artificially constructed reality be manifest in the thinking of our policy makers.
The recent Ukrainian “victories” that are currently talked about matter-of-factly in western media have “recaptured” essentially empty cattle-country that was strategically unimportant. They came at the cost of scores of Ukrainian lives - entire brigades wiped out - and massive amounts of equipment NATO can’t even replace quickly. being destroyed. The Russians comparatively have lost few lives and haven’t even mobilized their newest equipment yet.
If you lose soldiers that you can’t replace, armed with weapons you can’t replace, at a rate of ten to one for a hollow ‘victory’ you’re not really winning. BUT you can claim you are, you can claim it’s a turning point, and you can hope that you’ll make your enemy stumble and instigate a political victory. And if you’re a moron who fundamentally believes in the importance of appearances, that if your Instagram/LinkedIn profile is perfect then your life is perfect, you can probably fool yourself into thinking that doing retarded shit like bombing civilian infrastructure or throwing half your army into a meat grinder to score a temporary win in the “information war” is wise.
People don't understand that held territory isn't the qualifier for victory. Accomplished strategic goals are. Russia isn't trying to conquer and hold all of Ukraine for 20 years like afghanistan all over again. And they don't care about their own conscripts lives lost, nor are they fielding their best material and units. They're sacrificing shit they want to replace anyway, and the survivors have combat experience, which is valuable.
It’s interesting to see what I think is the social media-induced sense of artificially constructed reality be manifest in the thinking of our policy makers. The recent Ukrainian “victories” that are currently talked about matter-of-factly in western media have “recaptured” essentially empty cattle-country that was strategically unimportant. They came at the cost of scores of Ukrainian lives - entire brigades wiped out - and massive amounts of equipment NATO can’t even replace quickly. being destroyed. The Russians comparatively have lost few lives and haven’t even mobilized their newest equipment yet. If you lose soldiers that you can’t replace, armed with weapons you can’t replace, at a rate of ten to one for a hollow ‘victory’ you’re not really winning. BUT you can claim you are, you can claim it’s a turning point, and you can hope that you’ll make your enemy stumble and instigate a political victory. And if you’re a moron who fundamentally believes in the importance of appearances, that if your Instagram/LinkedIn profile is perfect then your life is perfect, you can probably fool yourself into thinking that doing retarded shit like bombing civilian infrastructure or throwing half your army into a meat grinder to score a temporary win in the “information war” is wise.
People don't understand that held territory isn't the qualifier for victory. Accomplished strategic goals are. Russia isn't trying to conquer and hold all of Ukraine for 20 years like afghanistan all over again. And they don't care about their own conscripts lives lost, nor are they fielding their best material and units. They're sacrificing shit they want to replace anyway, and the survivors have combat experience, which is valuable.