Comments by "chaosXpert" (@chaosXP3RT) on "Preston Stewart "
channel.
-
88
-
57
-
42
-
22
-
22
-
18
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
I'm not sure it comes down to unwillingness. I think Russia largely has an incapability to strike Ukrainian command positions, as well as supply lines and crucial infrastructure. Why do I believe this? I remember in the first weeks of the war seeing photos of Russian cruise missiles striking open fields and areas next to supposed Ukrainian command centers. I don't believe Russian missiles and GLONASS are as accurate as portrayed and I believe Russian intelligence gathering is limited. They seemed to rely on old maps and old info, striking places where command centers used to be or air-defense batteries used to be. We seem to see Russian strikes hitting Power station substations as often as they hit random buildings, often far from the frontlines. I see pro-Russian commentators claim that Ukraine is garrisoning soldiers in civilian buildings, but this true even for the Russian Army. The deadly New Year's strike in Makiivka was on a college complex where hundreds of Russians soldiers were stationed. A college campus is a civilian complex that Russian soldiers had occupied. In fact, in almost every war, buildings near the frontlines are frequently occupied by opposing armies. But Russian strikes on civilian buildings deep within Ukraine are unlikely to have soldiers stationed inside. I can only conclude that Russia is either purposely targeting civilian buildings or unintentionally hitting them.
In addition, the bridges across the Dnipro have not been destroyed. Destroying these would essentially cut Ukraine in half. The Dnipro is a massive river and repairs on said bridges could be difficult to carry out, especially under constant Russian missile strikes. The supplied Western bridging equipment may even struggle to span such a large river. Even ferries are not as effective as a bridge. In addition, the Ukrainians would have to share their bridging equipment and ferries with civilians. Destroying the Dnipro's bridges would be a huge strain on Ukrainian logistics. Imagine if Russia did this. As Ukrainian logistics struggled and forces in the east of the country faced dwindling supplies, the Russians could advance all the way up to the Dnipro River. Recovering from this would be nearly impossible for Ukraine and thus, Russians could use the ceased territories to negotiate for a Peace Agreement with Ukraine. And then imagine the propaganda opportunity Russia could use after the war to help rebuild eastern Ukraine with electricity, food, water, etc. They could claim the Ukrainian government is ineffective as it struggles to repair the Dnipro Bridges and rebuilt it's eastern territories.
Yet, Russia does not strike the Dnipro bridges. Russia has not eliminated the Ukrainian Air Force, which conducted 4 airstrikes of its own today. Russia does not attack rail lines around Lviv or near the Polish or Romanian borders. It does not attack marshalling yards or supply bases in the western side of Ukraine. Russia does not destroy Ukrainian command centers in nearly the same level as Ukraine destroys theirs. In fact, you never even hear of Russian cruise missiles striking concentrations of Ukrainian forces.
The only conclusion I can reach is that Russia is incapable of hitting these targets effectively. Otherwise they would have. It's just sound military strategy.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
While I think NATO certainly is learning from this war, especially from how an adversary like the Russian military operates and also how state militaries heavily-influenced by the USSR operate (like China). However, from testaments I've heard from NATO soldiers and NATO military commanders, I think that NATO is far more intelligent and more potent than many people believe. Many former Soviet state militaries often had to deal with budget issues, meaning that often had to make difficult choices on what weapon systems they could afford and which would be the most efficient for whatever military doctrine they wanted to pursue. While NATO militaries, like the USA, definitely had push back from their governments on budget and projects, on the whole, NATO militaries benefited from being more freely able to pursue different projects, procurements and doctrinal changes. The East had weaker economies than the West and far less money was available to their militaries. The leaders of Soviet-allied nations were much more concerned about keeping their power and defending themselves from Western aggression. If millions of cheap AK's and RPG's would keep the West at bay, then they were good enough. Meanwhile NATO wanted to do everything to keep Soviet influence contained. This meant that NATO was not invested in what was just "good enough", but what would actually completely destroy Soviet weapons in a conventional conflict. The trouble in the last 30-50 years is that Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were not conventional conflicts. I would say conflicts are made up of 4 broad elements to achieve victory: 1) Potent Weapons 2) Logistics 3) Strategies 4) Morale. Morale and Potent Weapons are probably the most important, but with asymmetric conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, Morale is by far the biggest factor. It took Vietnam 10 years to defeat the USA and the Taliban 20 years to defeat NATO because the Taliban and Vietnamese were made up of locals who had a reason to fight. NATO and US soldiers often questioned if fighting and dying for vague notions of another people's "freedom". If you cannot convince the enemy that they have been defeated, you cannot ever declare victory. That's the biggest deciding factor in conflict. But in terms of which has the better equipment, NATO weapons and doctrine will absolutely beat their Russian/Soviet counterparts. So in conclusion, I don't think NATO is learning as much from the War in Ukraine as the general public believes.
4
-
3