where's that trigger number that makes you think they are advancing? 10%? 25%? and what will you say then? it's too late, let's forget about them, they are lost to russia? 0.7% is 0.7% to many. 0.7% of the land contains people's homes. imagine your home on the territory that becomes occupied and the narrative goes "there's no advance". do you even exist then? are you even being protected by your country?

[–] Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'd say 5 % is a good trigger number. Maybe even 2 %. Though, it would still take them decades to take over all of Ukraine even if they were to advance at a pace of 2% per year.

For losing my home, it is not relevant if that's because of the Russia advancing or not. It could be retreating at a speed of 5% of Ukraine's total territory per year, but if it manages to take over my village, I've got a bad situation all the same.

The "advancing" is a very bad phrase because it makes Ukraine's situation look hopeless to many. "The Russia has been creeping forward" is a very different story from "The frontline has been largely stagnant since summer 2022."

A significant fraction of people in many countries in the west are against helping Ukraine because they think Ukraine will not be able to regain the occupied territories anyway. They wouldn't think that way if the news were talking about a stagnant frontline as is the reality instead of talking about the Russia "creeping forward" or even "advancing". For the outcome of the war the 0.7 % advance in year 2024 had no significance over a completely stagnant frontline. A good question is: How much did the front line move during the "stagnant" phase of World War I? We could very well write in our history books that either Germany or France was creeping forward, but somehow we are writing that the frontline was stagnant, even though advances of several tens or even hundreds of metres took place more or less often.

[–] ALERT@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

you got one fuck you from a Ukrainian.