I think is a bit of a desperate move and change of tactics. They've tried to rally support to be able to conventionally push back Russia on their turf, but that failed for multiple reasons, like the slow drip feeding of gear. Ukraine cannot reach critical masses like that.

I also think it's a matter of a shift in support. The "red line" has been moved over and over again. Remember the raids of the pro Ukraine Russian troops into Russia? Some of them used HMMVs and that got some backlash from the US already. Generally back then the common consensus was to not use any western gear on Russian soil, only on the occupied Ukrainian one. Now we see more and more countries loosening their stance and allow Ukraine to strike Russia within their borders using their weapons.

So now they can do something they couldn't really do before, and they're trying new things to hurt the enemy and potentially get some leverage out of it.

[+] Eiri -22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Very complete answer but not very "like I'm five"

[–] techt 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

ELI5 is not a literal request for an explanation a five year-old would understand; briefly consider how that would sound -- useless, right? It's a hyperbolic way of asking for a thorough, well-written explanation of a concept for someone who lacks the understanding to start asking the right questions or seek information on their own. There's your ELI5 ELI5.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, but I agree with eiri that Dark Thought's explanation is too complicated for ELI5

[–] techt 0 points 3 months ago

I might agree if the last single-sentence summary wasn't there -- that's as ELI5 as it gets, I'd say.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What part of my comment was too complicated for you to understand?

[–] Eiri 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'll preface all this by saying I'm not a native speaker of English, so my standards may be a bit lower than average.

Well the rallying support bit was a bit complicated. I also didn't understand what HMMV meant at first.

That whole thing about a red line confused me at first. I thought you meant the geographical front line of the conflict.

Also it's still not 100% clear to me what reaching a critical mass means in this context.

Generally speaking the sentences were a bit advanced and seemed to hedge on someone understanding military stuff and having a pretty extensive background on the conflict. I had to reread it attentively to understand, which is not what I'd generally expect of an ELI5 reply.

There's also that whole thing about foreign weapons and their suppliers having some degree of control over what Ukrainians do with them, which wasn't obvious to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Well the rallying support bit was a bit complicated.

In what way? It's been two years of Ukraine doing nothing but that.

I also didn't understand what HMMV meant at first.

It's a typo. I didn't proof read my comment since it was pretty late already. A HMMWV is a very common US military vehicle. Probably one of the most well known & iconic ones.

That whole thing about a red line confused me at first. I thought you meant the geographical front line of the conflict.

No. A red line is a figurative phrase about something that shall not be crossed - or else... Russia put up many red lines over the course of the war, including their borders being crossed, which would result in a nuclear response (which is typically the usual warning for pretty much any red line). There were many others, such as weapon deliveries to Ukraine, specific weapon deliveries to Ukraine such as tanks, or missiles, where those weapons could be used (specifically "if you use them to strike within Russia then...") etc.

Also it's still not 100% clear to me what reaching a critical mass means in this context.

Critical mass: An amount or level needed for a specific result or new action to occur. In this context it would mean that Ukraine gets enough gear to be able to achieve their military goals of fighting back Russia and push them back behind their borders.

Generally speaking the sentences were a bit advanced and seemed to hedge on someone understanding military stuff and having a pretty extensive background on the conflict. I had to reread it attentively to understand, which is not what I'd generally expect of an ELI5 reply.

Well, if you ask about a conflict that goes on for two and a half years, then I'd expect you to at least know the basic premise of it. You can't expect an ELI5 to cover that much time with all its events so of course I focused on the main part of their question. I would not describe my secondary English skills as "advanced" though. I speak very simplified English and don't use any complicated words.

There's also that whole thing about foreign weapons and their suppliers having some degree of control over what Ukrainians do with them, which wasn't obvious to me.

Specific export rules are standard for weapon deliveries and not really exclusive to weapons delivered to Ukraine. That topic has been talked about pretty much every month for the past couple years.