Yeah in the abstract it makes sense but it is in the context of demanding ammunition for front line needs, so posing these secondary and tertiary targets as a “supply us or else we will do this” pretty much reveals the game.

In the context of begging for weapons to stabilize a collapsing front line, then prioritizing secondary targets like airfields and tertiary targets like oil refineries doesn’t actually make much sense.

It reminds me of the Germans investing massive resources to the V2 rocket program to strike London. At face value it might seem impressive to be able to strike your enemy’s capital but when you look at the competing strategic concerns Germany was facing at the time, you quickly realize it was a move of desperate impotency.

For Ukraine to pose this as an “or else” to the west like this makes it clear to me they’re playing a kind of brinksmanship.

Supply us or else we will seek to drag you into this anyway. Supply us or else we escalate the war with Russia at a point when we are already losing. Supply us or else we make it untenable for Russia to have a negotiated peace, making this a war of annihilation - meaning you will have to deal with the prospect of Kyiv and Lviv eventually being occupied. Supply us or else we will maximize the cost of Ukraine losing this war and make you pick up the tab.

Supply us or else we will continue targeting strategically close-to-meaningless oil refineries for the sole effect of jacking the price of oil for you.

It’s all about Ukraine seeking to desperately avert impending military collapse and seeking to avert it by maximizing the cost of that failure to the west.

Ukraine is seeking to change the calculus: Supply us with your weapons or will make sure you have to use them anyway, so your cost-benefit analysis will force you to give them to us now.

Brinksmanship played against their benefactors. Something something biting the hand because it stopped feeding you.

One Deranged Angel

There is nothing the West could "realistically" send that would win the war in Ukraine's favor. I'm curious how the West is going to react to Azovite terror attacks in their countries.

the russiagate hoax too

There's a lot propaganda floating around in Chudspace positioning Russia as a bastion of western traditionalism, religious orthodoxy and opposition to gay/trans rights. To the Chud audience the Russia/Ukraine conflict is framed as tradition vs modern decadence and perversion.

It would be somehow less unhinged if it were just the other side of the russiagate coin.

Edit: obviously propaganda of equal quality also floats around asserting the inverse, ie the de-nazification narrative. Sometimes the streams cross and an article praising Putin's embrace of multicultural immigration (for example) will pop up in the spaces that tend fascist leaning pro-Russia. It's all quite tiresome and incoherent.

Maybe American ones...

Most are probably opportunistic to the core when it comes to foreign policy tbh, especially those in power.

Well, yes. They're currently in charge of the government. So the status quo is good. American chuds are not in charge of the country. So what the government is doing is bad. It's a team sport, and they aren't winning right now. It's not any more complicated than that.