Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
234
-
31
-
26
-
25
-
18
-
12
-
Soviet Union was economically 1.5 times less developed than German Reich and half of occupied Europe (France, half of Poland, ChehoSlovakia, YougoSlavia, Greece) - GDP of USSR - 530 billion US$, GDP of Germany with all ocupued territories in 1941 - ~800 billion US$. Also we must not forget that Germany was in war with UK at that time - building of Atlantic wall cost
10 billion $ to Germany in period of 1941-44, production of submarines for battle in Atlantic was larger in spent of iron than production of tanks during all war, in the British air Germany lost more than a 1.5 thousand aircrafts. Also Germany hold ~half of it's troops (Germany had 7.4 million) in the rears. Soviet Union had 2.66 times more population - 160 million own population, but from which only a part is loyal to Soviet governent or Russia. - let's say 2.25 times. Germany had 60 million own population. In the start of the war Soviet Union had equal to German in numbers of troops army, with 5 times more vechicles. (5.7 milion troops, 4.6 in European part, 21 thousand tanks, 20 thousands aircrafts, 56 thousand artillery, ~370 thousand supply trucks and ~54 thousand large tracktors. Germany prepared for Soviet campagin 4.1 milion troops, 6 thousands tanks, 4 thousands aircrafts, 11 thousands artillery, 70 thousand supply trucks and 10 thousand large trackrors. And even with 2.25 times more population, with equal economy, with much bigger army, Soviet Union lost 11.9 million soldiers in combat and 1.8 in captivity against 4.2 million Axis combat and 0.4 million captivity casualities, totaly losing first 2 years of war with 7 to 1 casuality ratio dead and 3 millions troops surendered. During Napoleonic wars there was familliar situation.
Modern Russian economy - 3.5 trillion US$, while US and NATO - ~35-40 trillion US$. 110 millions own population against ~1.3 billion. Russian army is much, much smaller than NATO. Soviet Union had German millitary technologies, that were taken in 1941 by Molotov-Rebbuntrop pact - millitary production equipment, vechicle sights, systems, that were copied and put into massive production. During the WW2, USSR had Americian industrial equipment - ALL Soviet T-34-85 tanks were produced on modern Americian machine tools, that were copied and put on massive production by USSR. All Soviet machines from 1928 were build on Weimar Republic equipment, from 1940 - on German, from - 1943 on Americian equipment. Even Soviet fighter mig-15, best of it's time, was made of English equipment, that was bought by Soviet Union in 1945 with English sights and aviation technologies. Modern Russia have the same problems - all termal imagers, sights, special equipment and computer systems are producing in the West. Russia didn't put into massive production T-114 Armata tank due to the Americian embargo of computer and sights systems. Modern Russia also politically unstable, and there is big threat of Civil war. Modern Russia don't have any chance, if there would be the war, after mobilization and approach to the borders, NATO would take Moscow and Urals after 2 months...
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
6
-
@fuzzydunlop7928 invasion of Iraq wasn't hypocritical - Iraq was an agressive state, that invaded its neighbours. Also, Saddam Husein was a dictator and founder of ISIS ideology, and genocides were happening in this country. In 1991 UN, by using mostly American forces, with suppourt of even Soviet Union (!!!), supressed Iraqish demands on invading the Kuwait. In 2003 US got the information about the nuke industry in Iraq, and UN, with suppourt of Russia (!!!) promised to invade Iraq. Despite the fact, that Russia suppourted US in this war, later Putin's propaganda started to make the positive vision of Iraq, Lybia, Syria and other dictatorships. The only allies of Russia are the dictators all across the World
5
-
@looinrims internet isn't blocked in Russia, but they (Kremlin) are trying to return death penality in Russia. Russia at now are returning into Stalinist type of a dictatorship. And I think, that Russian police would be using internet to supress people, who are talking against the government. The only hope for Russia at now is the future generations - Russian society is unable for protest or revolution against power, Russia always was a country of slaves with zero protest ability. And at now Putin is restoring the Soviet-style dictatorship.
But Russia have one positive thing - young people in Russia are mostly liberals, and 90% of young people aren't suppourting Putin. The old elites would physically die, and let's hope, that future generations of Russians would change everything. Putin completely devastated and destroyed country's economy and political system, Russia since this moment would be isolated millitarian ductatorship, but let's hope, that Russia would be free in the future, and this nightmare, that going in Russia since 1917, would someday end
5
-
5
-
5
-
@jsjsjsnsnjdjdjdjsj2327
* Sorry for my english, i don't talk on it, and don't have time to translate, bcs i wanna sleep
> Bureaucratism in USSR was in period of 1960-1991. Before this period in the USSR was death penality for corruption and politicial repressions against social-democrats and trotskists - bureaucrats.
> Before 1956 in USSR wasn't dictatorship. Confedeative form of power with autonomic in agriculture, low and middle enterprises, 1/3 part of enterprises were private with collective managment by workers with market prices and relations. Kchrushew destroyed soviet combined economic system, and banned all private enterprises in USSR, going over to ineffective planning economy.
> Stalin was only officially dictator, formally he hadn't power. He was economic theorist, who, as a result of a political war within the Russian Left Coalition (RSDRPr), killed his opponents, the bureaucrats, by carrying out massive repressions in the party. It was the right decision in an unstable country after the Civil War, when radical sentiments against the state still persist, on the eve of World War II, to eliminate bureaucrats, corrupt officials, and explicit anti-communists in the communist government. It was bloodly, hard, but right and neccesary decision.
It's like if in US government after Civil war were corrupted confederates, or during WW2 - fashists/nazis.
Stalin existed as an image of propaganda on a poster, and diplomat. And so he didn't even rule anything. He won the party struggle, developed along the way his economic model of socialism - combining private enterprises and local autonomy with a plan, and in fact didn't rule anything. He read an average of ~400 pages a day and wrote his scientific works. Even Stalin didn't control the repression. The execution lists were signed by the entire Politburo (Congress), more than 300 people. And raster lists, of which 373, have about 45 thousand cases, most fabricated by corrupt policemens. Three massive checks were carried out throughout the NKVD, as a result of which the mass fabrication of cases by the police for the sake of bonuses was uncovered, as well as the concealment of the number of those executed before the state more than 6 times. Afer the thruth was founded, the chief of soviet police (NKVD) and more than 20 thousands policemens, who were involved in the fabrication of cases were shot for their crimes.
> World famine in 1933 was caused by drought
5
-
5
-
@legatvsdecimvs3406 Vietnam lost 4 times more soldiers killed, than pro-US coalition. Veitnamese soldiers were supplied by Soviet weapons, equipment, anti-air, they were trained by Soviet officers and also few hundreed Soviet pilots fought on their side. During the Korean war Chinese and Korean army lost 5 times more, than S.Korean and US army. Chinese WW2 and civil war era army was comparable with Soviet army during WW2 - both Soviet and Chinese troops fought against Japanese with the same equal casuality ratio - 1 to 1, while US troops, due to the air suppourt and Japanese economic and technology backwardness fought with casuality ratio of 5 to 1. Gulf war, Iraq war. Or even WW2 - Germany lost due to the Allied air bombings 90% of its oil production, 15% of aviation production, 1/3 of all millitary productions during the war. 1/3 of all millitary economy. This is seriously damaged on German fighting capability in terms of quality and capability of every single soldier - German army became lesser capable to fight, and both Soviet and Allied armies simply smashed Germany in 1944-45. If you control the air, you can destroy your enemy economically - without bullets and millitary equipment enemy army would became much lesser capable to fight. And also this is damage to cities - communications and main economical centers. This is morale punch to enemy nation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@giftedtheos if Putin wanted to conquer entire Geogia, why he didn't did it in 2008? In august 2008 there was a very short small war between Russia and Georgia - this war happened because of Geogian agression - Georgia have invaded South Ossetia, and Russia conducted a peacekeeping operation. Even European Union recognised Georgia as an agressor after the war. European Union said that Georgia have started the war, not Russia, while Russian actions were the same as NATO in Kosovo. After 5 days of fighting Russian army achieved complete and total victory over Georgian army, Georgian forces were defeated after 5 days of war, and later there were negotiations between Russia and Georgia, and Russia pulled back its forced to pre war border, Russia didn't annexed, Russia didn't occupied even a square meter of Georgian soil. Russia and Georgia just negotiated and agreed to peace on pre-war border. Georgia is small country with population of 3 million and army of 20 thousand men, and Russian army achieved victory after 5 days of fighting, pulling Georgian forces out of South Ossetia, Russia had a chance to steamroll over Georgia in few weeks, even considering mountain terrain. But Putin have chosed peaceful solution, negotiations and Russian forces withdrew to pre-war border. After losing a war to Russia pro-Western party lost power in Georgia and at now Georgia in Russian sphere of influence, without conquering it, and previous Geogian president at now in prison, while current Georgian president is pro-Russian oligarch. We live in 21st century, at now you don't need to conquer state to control it. In 21st century there are such thing as "soft force" - great power can use its economy and prosperity to atract other nations. Belarus is in Russian sphere of influence as a result of Russian soft force. And Russia was succesfully defeating the West in soft force over Ukraine - Ukrainian president Yanukovich was elected in 2010, because he promised that Ukraine will join European Union. But Russia have gas discount to Ukraine and free money as a gift, as a result of which pro-Western Ukrainian president started to try to sit on two chairs between Russia and EU, and Yanukovich didn't approved deal with EU. As a result, Ukrainian oligarchs with help of CIA have organised massive protests and coup in Kyiv. Victoria Nuland was in Ukraine in december of 2013 and she was giving cookies to protesters, and in 2015 USA said that they spent on "development of Ukrainian democrasy" 5 billion dollars. Ukrainian economic elites, oligarchs, with help of CIA organised coup in Ukraine, because Western influence was defeated by Russian soft force - gas discounts and free money. West left Russia no other choise but to act more tough - if USA are conducting coups in Ukraine and if USA are changing Ukrainian government, why Russia don't have right to influence Ukraine too? Russia answered to this coup by annexing Crimea, a Russian region of Ukraine where Russians are 60% of population, while Ukrainians are minority - 20% of population. Crimea never belonged to Ukraine, it was a part of Russian Soviet Republic untill Nikita Khrushew gave this Russian land in 1954 to Ukraine to fix Soviet burecratic problems - Crimea didn't have land connection with Russia, so all gas and water supply to Crimea were from Ukrainian Soviet Repiblic, and there was a burecratic nightmare in Soviet Ukrainian government, they needed a telephone call to Moscow for every issue with Crimea, and in 1954 Krushew gave Russian core territory with majority of Russian population to other neighbouring state - Ukraine, but this is Russian people, Russian population and Russian land. After the collapse of USSR Russia respected Ukrainian territorial integrity for 23 years since 1991 to 2014, untill Ukraine waa at least neutral towards Russia. But after the anti-Russian coup in Ukraine with help of CIA, there would be no respect to territorial intrgrity of Russian territories inside Ukraine, and Russia liberated Crimea from Ukrainian occupation. I have talked with many people of Crimea, Russians from Crimea wanted to leave Ukraine since the collapse of USSR, they wanted and supported reunification with their homeland, their native harbor - Russia.
The same thing as in Georgia Putin wanted to do in Ukraine - all invasion was conducted after failed negotiations with NATO - Russia was trying to achieve its goals by peaceful means, but negotiations with NATO failed, and when diplomats stop talking, the cannons start talking for them. All Russian invasion in the start was a bluff to simply force Ukraine to negotiation table and peace on Russian terms, but I think Putin had few possible scenarios and plans for war, so scenario with capture of Kyiv and establishing puppet regime also was on Putin's table. But Russia didn't achieved capture of Kyiv and in march of 2022 there were negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. In december 2023 Arachamia, leader of Zelensky's parlament party, who was head of Ukrainian delegation at these negotiations, told the truth about what happened. This in not "Kremlin propaganda", this is words of Arachamia, head of Ukrainian diplomacy group during negotiations with Russia and head of Zelensky's party - Russia didn't wanted to annex territories at least at the start of the war, Russia wanted Ukraine to become neutral non-NATO member with censorship of nationalist media and reduction of military, and Russia was ready to pull back forces to pre-war border. But then Boris Johnson showed up and promised military aid to Ukraine, and Ukraine tricked Russia - Ukraine asked Russia to give a signal that Russia is ready to respect terms and then Ukraine will ratiphy agreement - there are already was Ukrainian and Russian signatures on these agreements. Russia showed its readiness by withdrawing forces from Northern Ukraine and Kyiv, and then Ukraine leaved negotiation process, and at now we are in the third year of war.
If Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine entirely, Putin had a good oportunity when Ukraine was weak - in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and probably 2017. But Russia didn't started full scale invasion in those years, but opposite - Russia gave to Ukraine 8 years to prepare for war. Ukrainian army was weak and simply didn't existed in 2014, if Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine, he could have simply do this in 2015, but Russia was doing opposite - when there was a war in the Donbass between Ukrainian army and Russian separatists from Donetsk and Luhansk, who wanted to join Russia, there were negotiations between Russia, EU and Ukraine, negotiations in Minsk, and Russia was trying to give this land to Ukraine. Russia made a peace project, according to which Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic would disarm and re join Ukraine, if Ukraine would respect Russian minority and language, and will give them a veto right in the parlament, but BOTH Ukraine and DPR and LPR refused to this peace project. Russia was trying to help Ukraine and Russia was trying to reunify Ukraine with territories of Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, and in 2015 Russian separatists saw it as a betrayal from Russia.
4
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
4
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
China isn't Russian friend - Chinese economy depends on the Western property rights - Chinese economy was built as a labor market for Western companies. China have more trade with US, than with Russia, and Chinese students and immigrants in US at now are normal thing. The US is main investor of Chinese economy. This is a lie, that China and USA are enemies - the government needs the picture of foreign enemy for propaganda, to unite people in the country and distract people from social problems. China and US aren't enemies - de facto Chinese economy depends on Western World as a labor market. The Chinese aren't able to build something by their numerical brains and hands. Their economy was build by Western World. And Western World, which is controlling exchange rates, depends on cheap products from China. But both Chinese and American governments are lying to their people, by picturing this "enemy". In reality China isn't suppourting Russia - China is using the moment to supress Russia in Chinese-Russian economic deals. There is no secret, that Russian-Chinese economic deals aren't equal. Russia suffering more and gaining lesser from trading with China. For example, in 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, Russia isolated herself from the West, the West sanctioned Russia for annexation of Crimea in 2014. But Russia depends on oil and gaz trade and import of technologies. And Russia had no choise, but to build gaz pepeline to China. This peoject was very expensive to Russia, and China in 2015 simply used the situation - China was bying Russian gaz by much lower prices than Global average. China also cuts down Russian forests in Siberia for low prices, destroying the Russian ecology and beauties of Siberia. Chinese are making the building materials from Russian wood, but Chinese are selling to Russians the lowest-quality building materials, that were made from sawdust, while normal-quality materials Chinese are holding for themselves. Russia have a status of a resource colony in Russo-Chinese economic relations. And at now China would also use the situation by colonizing Russia more - Samsung and Apple already leaved Russian market, and Chinese companies would take it. Europe at now started the programm of removal from dependence from Russian gaz and oil. Russian economy is totally dependent on oil and gaz. Putin, like street bagger would run to China for economic deal. And Chinese wouldn't made this deal equal with Russians. Putin before the 2022 was an independent president, but after this war he would simply the executer of orders from Bejing.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sectero9450 you are talking nonesence - Ukraine is just as same corrupt as Russia. Ukrainian officials and oligarchs also spent money on yachts.
For example Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who was an oligatch before he became president, have a business in Russia - a factory that produces chocolate candies "Roshen". Also, during the war in the Donbass In 2015, there was a scandal when coal from the territory of Donbass, controlled by pro-Russian rebels, was exported from this territory to Russia, and then from Russia was exported to Ukraine. And the corruption connections of the President of Ukraine with this coal traffic were found. Can you imagine - thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are dying at the front, and at the same time, the President of Ukraine has a business in Russia, and coal from the territories of the rebels is brought to Ukraine through Russia, and the President of Ukraine receives kickbacks from this? Or Zelensky, who worked as a comedian on Russian television in the 2000s. In 2008, a Russian comedy show had a number dedicated to Russia's victory in the war with Georgia in the five-day war in August 2008. In this humorous number, Zelensky played the role of Georgian President Saakashvili, and there were two other actors who played the role of the President of the United States and Ukraine. This humorous issue ridiculed the entire foreign policy of Ukraine, Georgia and the United States, and it turns out that in 2008 Zelensky on Russian television ridiculed his own country. Zelensky is just a talking head on TV, he is an actor, he has no political power. In Russia, the police state - power is in the hands of the police and special services, and the state is above business. In Ukraine, on the contrary - in Ukraine, the oligarchs rule the country, and the oligarchs in Ukraine are above the state. President Poroshenko was himself an oligarch. And Zelensky is a famous actor, and therefore the Ukrainian oligarchs decided to appoint him as a talking head on TV. But he does not make any decisions, he has no power. Ukrainian oligarchs are accustomed to cooperating with Russia - an example of this is the permanent agreements on gas discounts and the fact that the gas pipes that consistently supplied gas to Europe right during the war in the last year and a half have not been touched or bombed.
This is a capitalist war, and both Russian and Ukrainian elites are not saint. Both Ukrainian and Russian elites benefit from this war. Even Western media said few times that Ukrainian generals and military officials are corrupted. Israel recently refused to transfer weapons to Ukraine because, according to Israel's prime minister, "Ukraine is reselling weapons to terrorists in Syria."
Ukrainian oligarchs are ready to cede a small piece of territory to Russia, Russia will definitely squeeze, and then there will be a decrease in the intensity of hostilities and a freeze of the conflict without negotiations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Во первых, начнём с того, что украинская армия ничем не лучше российской по качеству подготовки и экипировки. Во вторых, в России с 2008 года идёт военная реформа. Российская армия с 2008 получила огромное количество современной военной техники, и много старой техники было модернизировано. Ты демонстрируешь просто космический уровень незнания ситуации в армии России. Да и в Украине с военной техникой дела не лучше. В третьих, аналогия с Чечнёй в корни не верна. Война в Чечне происходила в 1994-96 годах, когда армия России была развалена как структура. Я ещё раз повторю, что с 2008 года в России идёт военная реформа, повышается качество и время тренировок и учений. Чечня к тому же это исламистская страна, и население Чечни сопротивлялось очень яростно, потому что они мусульмане. В четвёртых, современного западного оружия у Украины не так много, да и не даёт оно такого приемущества - я опять же повторю, что ты заблуждаешься, когда говоришь, что у России устаревшее оружие. У России большая часть техники и оружия современные, те же Т-72-б-3 2016 года выпуска. У Украины как раз таки наоборот более древняя техника. У России тотальное превосходство в воздухе и многократное превосходство в численности при равной обученности войск. Ну и да, совсем забыл - в 2000 году армия России вполне успешно за пару месяцев разделалась с Чечнёй.
И да, Россия не воюет призывниками на Украине - пока там сражаются контрактники российской армии
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
3
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeru18e839 battle of Halhin Gol - 75 thousand Soviet and Mongol soldiers, 1500 tanks, 1000+ aircraft, few hundreed artillery. Against 40 thousand Japanese soldiers, less than 100 tanks, ~200 aircraft, less than 300 artillery. Casualities - USSR and Mongolia lost 9500 KIA, nearly 400 tanks and more than 100 aircraft. Japan lost 8500 KIA and 33000 captured. Manchjurian operation - Japanese army was already defeated by Chinese and American forces - Japan lost most of officers in Chinese and Pacific front - officers are training and commanding soldiers, all of micromanagement on their shoulders. American air bombings of Japan led to collapse of millitary production power - Japan lost more than a half of production power, this means than Japanese army lost more than a half of supplying. Soviet forces entered Manchjuria after American nuclear bombings, while Japanese command was already disscusing about capitulation. And also Manchjurian Japanese army was 3rd valuable force, that in half consisted from Koreans and Manchjurians, that were colonized by Japanese and weren't able to fight for their colonizators. Manchjurian army hadn't good weapons, and was armed by 19th century cannons. Soviets lost 13000 KIA, while Japan lost 21000 KIA. For example during the battle of Okinawa American army lost 25000 KIA against 90000 Japanese casualities - in Okinawa Americans faced a much stronger, 1st valuable Japanese force, while in N. China Soviets faced 3rd valuable force with cannons from 19th century, that consisted on half from Koreans. And Americans lost 4 times less men, while Soviets lost only 1.5 times less men
3
-
3
-
This is a complete failure. Maybe not military, but a failure. Let's remember why Russia started the war with Ukraine back in 2014 - Russia started the war to prevent NATO from expanding to the East. Putin has said and says that Russia is afraid of NATO expansion. However, let's think, is NATO a threat to Russia, which has nuclear weapons? The question is rhetorical - no. The democratic powers of the West will never go to war without a good reason, especially a war against a country with nuclear weapons that will incinerate them, which Russia is capable of doing. So, there is no military threat to NATO. It means that Russia is not concerned about security in the issue of NATO expansion, but about spheres of influence - in 2013-14, a democratic revolution took place in Ukraine, the corrupt President Yanukovych was overthrown, and since then Ukraine has been striving for democracy, wanted to join NATO and the EU, i.e. Russia risked losing its zone of economic and political influence. That is why in 2014 Russia made the first attempt to invade and seize Ukraine - when Russian special services and the military seized administrative buildings in the Eastern regions of Ukraine inhabited by Russians, after which the Crimean, Donetsk and Lugansk Republics were proclaimed. In Crimea, the Ukrainian military, who did not want to fight with the Slavic brothers, agreed with the Russians and evacuated, after which Crimea entered Russia, but they did not negotiate in the Donbas and the war began, which was waged by Russia and the rebels, although support for the idea of separation from Ukraine in the regions of Eastern Ukraine was and is actually low. I am Russian, and I myself remember how in 2014 they told us on TV that the rebels would now seize Kiev and "liberate Ukraine", they told us on TV about the downed Ukrainian military aircraft, which, as it turned out later, actually turned out to be a Maylazian Boeing that was flying to the Netherlands. I remember 2015, when Boris Nemtsov, an oppositionist who opposed the war, was killed by an automatic burst right in the center of Moscow, the Russian opposition died with him. Putin, who had completely lost his popularity by 2012, raised his rating as a result of the annexation of Crimea, it was such a "small victorious war". If in 2011 Putin's rating was 28%, then in 2015 it was more than 60%.
Russia does not want to allow the spread of the zone of influence of the West to its borders, and at the same time Russia is trying to maintain its zone of influence, but the military threat that Putin is talking about does not come from the West. That is, Russia wants to remain an independent country and not allow itself into the zone of influence of the West. However, here the Russian leadership makes a fatal mistake - due to the fact that Russia resists the growth of the zone of influence of the West, Russia receives sanctions and restrictions, Russia is isolated from the World economy, despite the fact that Russia does not really produce anything except resources, the buyer of which still needs to be found, and depends on imports. And Russia, receiving sanctions from the West, is isolated, and Putin is forced to flee to China to bow. I.e. if Russia is not a zone of influence of the West, Russia will simply become a colony of China, and this is even worse. Back in 2014, China took advantage of Russia's position. In 2015, Russia laid an insanely expensive gas pipeline to China, and the Chinese bought gas from us much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese buy oil from Russia much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese cut down forests cheaply in Russia, produce building materials at home, and sell the lowest quality boards made of sawdust to Russia. Relations between Russia and China are absolutely unequal, China regards Russia not as an equal partner, but as a colony, a resource appendage. China is simply taking advantage of the position of Russia, which quarrels with the whole world. It is foolish to think that China is an ally of Russia. The Chinese have always been duplicitous, cunning and expectant, and they have always stuck a knife in the back of the Russians, as it was in the 1950s, when China broke off all relations with the USSR, and this after Soviet soldiers liberated them from the Japanese, the USSR provided the communist army in their civil war, and Soviet scientists gave they need a nuclear bomb. The problem is that no one will come to the aid of Russia, isolated because of this war, if the Chinese want to cross the border. This is a complete failure of Russia's foreign policy. Russia will lose its economy due to sanctions, our standard of living will soon be lower than in Brazil. And the war itself is taking place between fraternal peoples who have kinship ties. And it will not be possible to occupy Ukraine - they will want independence. We'll just get a territory populated by partisans who hate us. This is a disaster, Russia lost the war before it started. Even in the first second of the war, Russia had already lost it, when no one had died yet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The truth is Russia since the start of the war fought against Ukraine not in full capability, in the start of the invasion Russia was using limited force of volunteers among contractors of ~150 thousand men, without mobilization, while Ukraine already had army of 200 thousand men even before the war and Ukraine started to mobilize already since the first day of war. This happened because Putin wants to hold the power and he didn't wanted to anger Russian people with mobilization, Putin didn't wanted to provoke and anger Russian population, risking to lose his huge support and reputation, so Putin thought that he will end the war in 2-3 weeks by forcing Ukraine to negotiations and Russian peace terms, or even captuting Kyiv and establishing puppet regime, and small force of 150 thousand soldiers would be enough for 2 weeks of war. But Putin's plans failed - during the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Russia was tricked. Russia was ready to leave all captured territories and pull back to pre-war borders, in exchange of Ukraine's neutral and non-NATO status. Ukraine asked Russia to give a signal that Russia is ready to respect terms, and Russia withdrew forces from Northern Ukraine and Kyiv, and after this happened Ukraine leaved negotiations. And this is a tragedy, because there was possibilty to end the war in march or 2022, and Russia in the start of the war didn't wanted to annex Ukrainian lands, Russia was ready to withdraw to pre-war border if Ukraine wouldn't join NATO, this was Russian terms on negotiations. Ukraine had a chance of pre-war borders in the start of the war, but Ukraine have chosen to trick Russia, because Western powers promised military aid to Ukraine, and Ukraine thought that it will take Crimea and Donbass. But I think Western power have tricked Ukraine too - Ukrainian victory is unprofitable for USA. USA wants slow attrition of Russia. This is a war of attrition against Russia, and this is why USA are giving to Ukraine insufficient amount of help. USA have a purpose to not allow Ukraine to win, and West is giving insufficient amount of help to Ukraine to win, but sufficient to not allow Russia to advance. West have tricked Ukraine, and USA are using Ukraine as a proxy, as a cannon fodder against Russia in proxy hybrid war of attrition.
In the start of thr war Russia fought with quality, while Ukraine fought with quantity. Russia have total superiority in artillery, artillery is a god of war and causes 80-90% of all casualities in war. Also, in the start of the war Russia fought with volunteers among professional contract troops, while Ukrainians were defending with everything they had, including uncapable and untrained young conscripts and mobilized troops. Russian contractors of course were much more capable to fight than Ukrainian untrained 18 years old conscripts and 50 years old mobilized with heart problems, and Russia had total advantage in artillery. So, in the start of the war, in first few months of war, Russia fought with quality, while Ukraine fought with quantity, Ukrainian losses were higher, but Russian offensive have stuck in Ukrainian numerical superiority more and more as Ukraine was mobilizing more men. In summer 2022 Ukraine received American accurate missile systems, which reduced Russian artillery superiority. In september 2022 there was a significant numerical superiority on Ukrainian side, 2 to 1 in Ukrainian favor, two Ukrainian soldiers for every one Russian, and with huge numerical superiority Ukrainian army made a breakthrough of Russian lines in Kharkiv region. After that Putin had a dilema - Putin wants to stay in power and he don't want to anger Russian people with mobilization, but also he wanted to end the war in 2 weeks, and on 8th month of war Ukrainian army have significant numerical superiority, and Russia will lose the war without mobilization. Putin have chosen to conduct one wave of mobilization, risking losing support from people, and Putin have lost his reputation and support of Russian people, I can say it as Russian citizen. Mobilization saved Russian lines from collapsing, and Ukrainian offensive was stopped, but casuality ratio changed by 180 degree and Russia was losing more men in fall of 2022, but casuality ratio have equalized already in the start of the 2023, because as time was passing Russian mobilized troops were gaining combat experience. Mobilization in Russia have ended already in november 2022, and as a result Russian army didn't received numerical superiority - both armies were just equalized, there was nearly 1 to 1 ratio of strength between Ukrainian and Russian armies in late 2022. And since then for 1.5 year there was no more mobilization in Russia. So, at now, at may of 2024, there are nearly 450 thousand Russian troops, mostly volunteer, and nearly 600 thousand Ukrainian, Ukraine is constantly mobilizing, but Ukrainian casualities are higher because of Russian artillery superiority. Also, Russian army have adapted and received huge experience, changed tactics, Russia started massive production of drones and electronic warfare. Electronic warfare makes drones and famous American GPS artillery shells for 777 hotwitzer useless and inaccurate, and also Russia modernized aviation, making the same that USA during after Vietnam war - Russian jets were armed with laser navigated bombs. Ukraine on the other hand after two years of war of attrition have problems with arming newly mobilized troops, Zelensky needs half a million more men and he don't have equipment for them. This all makes the picture clear - Russian advances will loosen Ukrainian defense more and more, and if it will continue for few months more, there are a risk of total collapse of Ukrainian lines.
Also, USA will give fighter jets to Ukraine, they wouldn't change the situation in the frontline, and USA are making mistake, because Russian anti-air and fighters will receive real combat experience and train. USSR made the same mistake during the Vietnam war - USSR gave anti-air and fighters to North Vietnam, and as a result USA gained experience of air combat with Soviet avation and anti-air, and USA modernized their aviation, USA stoped using unguided bombs after Vietnam. USSR simply made US airforce stronger, and at now USA will make Russian air force and anti-air stronger, experiences, trained
2
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@off_grid_javelin Russia have the same strategy in terms of tank production as USA - we are modernizing our old equipment to new standarts. Russia have in majority T-72 tanks, but they are modernized. The most numerical Russian tank is T-72-b3, 1600 were in Russian army in 2020, it was made in 2016, but technologically this tank is comparable to American tanks from late 2000s. Ukraine have even worser situation with military tech, but common - who is using tanks in 2022? Tanks are useless in modern combat. Ukrainians are using drones and light anti-tank weaponary, ambush tactics. Russia have little amount of aviation, + lack of aircraft fuel, + Russian pilots not so educated, as NATO pilots, + you need to aim aviation on enemy. Also, you can shoot down a plane by anti-air, while drones are light and hard target to them. Drones don't need aim. You can produce drones more massively and cheaper, and they don't need an educated pilot. Tanks are useless in 21st century - I think T-34 is even better combat vehicle in 2022, than T-72-b3 or T-90.
Russia at now have manpower shortage, because war wasn't declared, this is special military operation, and Russian contract soldiers are able to simply reject proposal to serve in Ukraine, and they are doing this massively. Russia don't have mobilization, and in autumn there would be castling in Russia - conscripts would be sent home from the frontline, while new untrained conscripts would face Ukrainian troops, that already have combat experience. And this would be probably a moment, when we would totaly lose the war.
Russian army in Ukraine already outnumbered, contract troops are rejecting service, there is no mobilization, soon there would be castling. Land vehicles are dependent on infantry suppourt, and Russia, having small number of soldiers are sacrficing its tanks and vehicles - Russian casualities in terms of vehicles are much higher than Ukrainian.
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ukraine is very poor country in terms of economy, and due to the war Ukrainians didn't worked on their agricultural sector of economy this year, while agriculture is a main engine of Ukrainian economy. Mobilization and huge numbers of refugees, Russian bombings of infrastructure are also destroying Ukrainian economy, while Russia also is suffering economically, but still holding her economical positions - Russian government provided governmental monopolization of rouble currensy, so at now rouble is feeling itself like before the war started. Also, Europe wouldn't completely reject gas trade with Russia up to 2027, Russia still have trade relations with China and most of International companies. Also, due to the agricultural crisis in Ukraine, agriculture at now is growing in Russia.
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, let's start with the fact that the Ukrainian army is no better than the Russian one in terms of the quality of training and equipment. Secondly, Russia has been undergoing military reform since 2008. The Russian army has received a huge amount of modern military equipment since 2008, and a lot of old equipment has been modernized. You demonstrate a cosmic level of ignorance of the situation in the Russian army. And in Ukraine, things are no better with military equipment. Thirdly, the analogy with Chechnya is fundamentally wrong. The war in Chechnya took place in 1994-96, when the Russian army was destroyed as a structure. I will repeat once again that since 2008, Russia has been undergoing military reform, the quality and time of training and exercises are improving. Chechnya is also an Islamist country, and the population of Chechnya resisted very fiercely because they are Muslims. Fourth, Ukraine does not have so many modern Western weapons, and it does not give such advantages - I will repeat again that you are mistaken when you say that Russia has outdated weapons. Russia has most of the equipment and weapons modern, the same T-72-b-3 2016 release. Ukraine, on the contrary, has a more ancient technique. Russia has total air superiority and multiple superiority in numbers with equal training of troops. Well, yes, I completely forgot - in 2000, the Russian army quite successfully dealt with Chechnya in a couple of months.
Russia at now fighting in Ukraine by using only volunteers. Russian conscripts at now don't fight
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The truth is Russia since the start of the war fought against Ukraine not in full capability, in the start of the invasion Russia was using limited force of volunteers among contractors of ~150 thousand men, without mobilization, while Ukraine already had army of 200 thousand men even before the war and Ukraine started to mobilize already since the first day of war. This happened because Putin wants to hold the power and he didn't wanted to anger Russian people with mobilization, Putin didn't wanted to provoke and anger Russian population, risking to lose his huge support and reputation, so Putin thought that he will end the war in 2-3 weeks by forcing Ukraine to negotiations and Russian peace terms, or even captuting Kyiv and establishing puppet regime, and small force of 150 thousand soldiers would be enough for 2 weeks of war. But Putin's plans failed - during the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Russia was tricked. Russia was ready to leave all captured territories and pull back to pre-war borders, in exchange of Ukraine's neutral and non-NATO status. Ukraine asked Russia to give a signal that Russia is ready to respect terms, and Russia withdrew forces from Northern Ukraine and Kyiv, and after this happened Ukraine leaved negotiations. And this is a tragedy, because there was possibilty to end the war in march or 2022, and Russia in the start of the war didn't wanted to annex Ukrainian lands, Russia was ready to withdraw to pre-war border if Ukraine wouldn't join NATO, this was Russian terms on negotiations. Ukraine had a chance of pre-war borders in the start of the war, but Ukraine have chosen to trick Russia, because Western powers promised military aid to Ukraine, and Ukraine thought that it will take Crimea and Donbass. But I think Western power have tricked Ukraine too - Ukrainian victory is unprofitable for USA. USA wants slow attrition of Russia. This is a war of attrition against Russia, and this is why USA are giving to Ukraine insufficient amount of help. USA have a purpose to not allow Ukraine to win, and West is giving insufficient amount of help to Ukraine to win, but sufficient to not allow Russia to advance. West have tricked Ukraine, and USA are using Ukraine as a proxy, as a cannon fodder against Russia in proxy hybrid war of attrition.
In the start of thr war Russia fought with quality, while Ukraine fought with quantity. Russia have total superiority in artillery, artillery is a god of war and causes 80-90% of all casualities in war. Also, in the start of the war Russia fought with volunteers among professional contract troops, while Ukrainians were defending with everything they had, including uncapable and untrained young conscripts and mobilized troops. Russian contractors of course were much more capable to fight than Ukrainian untrained 18 years old conscripts and 50 years old mobilized with heart problems, and Russia had total advantage in artillery. So, in the start of the war, in first few months of war, Russia fought with quality, while Ukraine fought with quantity, Ukrainian losses were higher, but Russian offensive have stuck in Ukrainian numerical superiority more and more as Ukraine was mobilizing more men. In summer 2022 Ukraine received American accurate missile systems, which reduced Russian artillery superiority. In september 2022 there was a significant numerical superiority on Ukrainian side, 2 to 1 in Ukrainian favor, two Ukrainian soldiers for every one Russian, and with huge numerical superiority Ukrainian army made a breakthrough of Russian lines in Kharkiv region. After that Putin had a dilema - Putin wants to stay in power and he don't want to anger Russian people with mobilization, but also he wanted to end the war in 2 weeks, and on 8th month of war Ukrainian army have significant numerical superiority, and Russia will lose the war without mobilization. Putin have chosen to conduct one wave of mobilization, risking losing support from people, and Putin have lost his reputation and support of Russian people, I can say it as Russian citizen. Mobilization saved Russian lines from collapsing, and Ukrainian offensive was stopped, but casuality ratio changed by 180 degree and Russia was losing more men in fall of 2022, but casuality ratio have equalized already in the start of the 2023, because as time was passing Russian mobilized troops were gaining combat experience. Mobilization in Russia have ended already in november 2022, and as a result Russian army didn't received numerical superiority - both armies were just equalized, there was nearly 1 to 1 ratio of strength between Ukrainian and Russian armies in late 2022. And since then for 1.5 year there was no more mobilization in Russia. So, at now, at may of 2024, there are nearly 450 thousand Russian troops, mostly volunteer, and nearly 600 thousand Ukrainian, Ukraine is constantly mobilizing, but Ukrainian casualities are higher because of Russian artillery superiority. Also, Russian army have adapted and received huge experience, changed tactics, Russia started massive production of drones and electronic warfare. Electronic warfare makes drones and famous American GPS artillery shells for 777 hotwitzer useless and inaccurate, and also Russia modernized aviation, making the same that USA during after Vietnam war - Russian jets were armed with laser navigated bombs. Ukraine on the other hand after two years of war of attrition have problems with arming newly mobilized troops, Zelensky needs half a million more men and he don't have equipment for them. This all makes the picture clear - Russian advances will loosen Ukrainian defense more and more, and if it will continue for few months more, there are a risk of total collapse of Ukrainian lines. After 2 years of war Russian war economy grew few times, at now Russia outproduces entire NATO alliance in terms of artillery shells by 3 times, and NATO's Europe's arenals are 1/2 empty.
Also, USA will give fighter jets to Ukraine, they wouldn't change the situation in the frontline, and USA are making mistake, because Russian anti-air and fighters will receive real combat experience and train. USSR made the same mistake during the Vietnam war - USSR gave anti-air and fighters to North Vietnam, and as a result USA gained experience of air combat with Soviet avation and anti-air, and USA modernized their aviation, USA stoped using unguided bombs after Vietnam. USSR simply made US airforce stronger, and at now USA will make Russian air force and anti-air stronger, experienced, trained with F-16 delivery to Ukraine
2
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
2
-
2
-
@imtheabsolutegoat6497 but Russia have USSR's technologies and nukes. USSR army have 20 000 + tanks, when russian 15 000, USSR have 4 000+ planes, when Russia have 3 000, USSR have chemical weapon, but in 1996 Russia destroy ALL russian chemical weapon( more than 6 000 rockets). USSR have 4 000 helicopters, when Russia have 1 600.USSR have 2.5 million soldiers when Russia have 2.2 million at now. Russians made a fighter, than can hang on the air and unfolds on the spot. But this plane was one for all army, and have lowest ammo. Soviet union have 500+ warships, when Russia have 350 + rusted warships. Russia have one rusted aircraft carrier with 7 planes , when USSR have 8 of them and in 1994 have planed to made 5 new. In russian rusted aircraft carrier for 5 years happens several accodents. And die 2 russian pilots in Syria. Russian army have technologies. Yesterday Russian army start re-equipment. New storm rifles and submachinguns AK-112 and AK-115, because AK-63, AKm and AK-74 were very old like AK-47 in 60s. Russian army have powerful technologies at now. But this devises americian friends have 15 years ago, but Russia made them few month ago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yourpersonalrobotwaifu8404 US have conceptual crisis of capitalism development? USSR fall because of socialism came to the dead end, because our country during the reign of Lenin and Stalin was in constant upheavals and crises - everything lay in ruins after the Civil War - hunger, crime, national minorities wanted independence, then another war and total destruction. And therefore, in our country there was a forced dictatorship, and Stalin was unable to build a normal system of power, and after the death of the revolutionaries, they were replaced by a corrupt bureaucracy that destroyed the economic system, bringing everything to a dead end.
Although I agree that in the USA there are the same problems as in the USSR - the more a person gets, the more his needs are. And in the USSR there was a problem that as the quality of life improved, people became more and more dissatisfied. In the USA there is a similar problem, it is a problem of the whole economy - the third stage of consumption, which cannot be overcome, the satisfaction of social status - gold watches, toilets and luxury. All people want this, but only 1% will get it, and even if these goods become massive, they will simply stop giving the rich status, because will cease to be something rare and isolated, therefore this level of consumption cannot be overcome. And people in the USSR became more and more dissatisfied.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and (my opinion) if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, I don't think that the differense is huge. Probably the fighting capability of an Ukrainian is ~125% of Russian + the advantage of defensive side in casualities. Also, Ukrainians have drones and modern Western AT weapons.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities.
The major 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed in first few weeks:
1) Joung Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine (Millitary crimes probably were commited by soldiers of Asian and Islamic nationalities or by Russian police forces, not by Russian troops of Slavic nationality, I heard that Bucha massacre was commited by Chechen troops) . Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland. Also, civillian deaths would demoralize Russians and rise the morale of Ukrainians.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation. Russians were invading Ukraine by moving in columns, very dangerous for ambushes.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy and corruption in Russia and Ukraine are in the same level, but Ukraine was fighting a Donbass war, and Ukrainians probably worked on corruption in their army, and also Ukrainian army was trained by Western specialists. Also, Ukrainians have modern Western AT weapons and drones.
After 3 weeks Russians had stopped their invasion, and at now they are reinforcing and forming the frontline, they made a pause. Russians are dasapointed of their first plan, and they refused it, retreated from Kyiv to regroup and resupply in the Donbass region. This means that Russians aren't targeting occupation of all Ukraine no more, Russians refused their goal to occupie all Ukraine, and at now fighting would go only in the East of Ukraine. Also, because war wasn't declared, and Putin didn't even call this a war, there is no mobilization in Russia. After 2 months from the start of war Russia didn't started mobilization. Also, many mercenaries and volumteers from other countries are supporting Ukraine. Probably Ukrainian side already have numerical superiority over the Russian side.
Let's hope this war would end up to the 9th of May - the every-year celebration of Soviet victory in WW2. Putin need to end the war up to 9th of May 2022, so, probably Russia would take Mariupol and Donbass region, and war would end, if Ukrainian side would agree.
I think that casualities ratio between Russia and Ukraine is ~2 to 1 in favour of Ukraine.
The popular comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bkeckk European Union recognised that Georgia started the war.
How can Serbia invade its own territory? Why America and NATO bombed Serbia in 1999? Your Western hypocrisy know no limits
During the times of Soviet Union, Soviet leaders made unjustical borders, giving territory of two separate nations to Georgia. Also, Nikita Krushew gave Russian populated territory - Crimea, from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 just to fix Soviet burecratic problems. Crimea have no land connection with Russia, so all gas and water supplies to Crimea were from Ukrainian Soviet Republic, and Nikita Krushew was head of Soviet Ukraine before he became leader of USSR, and for every issue with Crimea he needed to make a call to Moscow. So, Nikita Keushew gave Russian core national territory, where Russians are 60% of population, because of his personal interest. This is a crime. Nikita Krushew commited a crime, by giving Russian land to another country. After the collapse of USSR Russia respected territorial integrity of Russian lands in Ukraine until Ukraine was at least neutral towards Russia, but after oligarchic anti-Russian coup with help of CIA there would be no respect and Russia liberated its own territory, and people of Crimea were waiting and they were happy with this liberation and reunification with homeland
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How do you now the scales of casualities - who lost more and who lost lesser? Let's be honest - Russians sent desant in south of Kiev, the city would be completely surrounded in few days, cutted off from supplies. Without supplies, without ammo and food Ukrainian troops have no chances. If Kiev would be surrounded, Ukrainians in the city would have limited amount of ammo to fight. Russians in 2 days passed several dozens of kilometres in all frontline, reaching and passing Dniepper on south, surrounding Kharkiv, Sumi and Mariupol. Let's not forget, that Russians at now don't have any numerical advantage over the Ukrainians on the land. What would happen, if they would have numerical advantage? Russians without any numerical advantage in just 2 days passed few dozens of kilometres into Ukrainian territory, and surrounded major cities. Yes, they didn't captured this cities yet, but this is question of time - the urban area in the millitary history always was the place, that hard to storm and easy to defend. Russians have total air and naval numerical advantage, Russians have rockets. If we would be honest, Ukrainian people at now have no chances. Russian army would suffer losses - its "defense" ministry already bought 50 thousands bags... But anyway, Ukraine would be occupied. And probably Ukrainian army suffer the same amount of casualities, as Russian army, because Ukrainian and Russian army have the same level of training and equipment. The Ukrainians have defensive advantage in casualities, but Russians have total air numerical advantage and aviation suppourt.
- This is the HONEST position.
This would be a tradegy for all World...
1
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
1
-
1
-
1812.
Russia vs France, Spain, Portugal, occupied Prussia, occupied Austria, Denmark( with Norway), Italy, Naples, Sweden, German dutchies, occupied Netherlands.
Result:
Tactical russian victory. 1813 - battle of Berlin and Venna.1814 - battle of Paris.
1941 :
Soviet Union and Great Britain( and US until winter 1941) vs Nazi Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, Finland, Hungary, occupied France, occupied Austria, occupied part of Poland, occupied Greece, occupied Africa, occupied Denmark, occupied Belgium, occupied Netherlands, occupued Chechoslovakia, occupied Yougoslavia.
Result:
Tactical allies and soviet victory.
340 battles won. 80% of all Axis powers were destroyed by USSR. USSR made half Europe and all Asia his puppets, to protect borders against invasions. US made NATO against USSR and to control western Europe. All world superpowers were destroyed by Germany, but US and USSR destroyed Germany, and begin to share the world. US and USSR didn't shared world, and started Cold war.
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
This is a complete failure. Maybe not military, but a failure. Let's remember why Russia started the war with Ukraine back in 2014 - Russia started the war to prevent NATO from expanding to the East. Putin has said and says that Russia is afraid of NATO expansion. However, let's think, is NATO a threat to Russia, which has nuclear weapons? The question is rhetorical - no. The democratic powers of the West will never go to war without a good reason, especially a war against a country with nuclear weapons that will incinerate them, which Russia is capable of doing. So, there is no military threat to NATO. It means that Russia is not concerned about security in the issue of NATO expansion, but about spheres of influence - in 2013-14, a democratic revolution took place in Ukraine, the corrupt President Yanukovych was overthrown, and since then Ukraine has been striving for democracy, wanted to join NATO and the EU, i.e. Russia risked losing its zone of economic and political influence. That is why in 2014 Russia made the first attempt to invade and seize Ukraine - when Russian special services and the military seized administrative buildings in the Eastern regions of Ukraine inhabited by Russians, after which the Crimean, Donetsk and Lugansk Republics were proclaimed. In Crimea, the Ukrainian military, who did not want to fight with the Slavic brothers, agreed with the Russians and evacuated, after which Crimea entered Russia, but they did not negotiate in the Donbas and the war began, which was waged by Russia and the rebels, although support for the idea of separation from Ukraine in the regions of Eastern Ukraine was and is actually low. I am Russian, and I myself remember how in 2014 they told us on TV that the rebels would now seize Kiev and "liberate Ukraine", they told us on TV about the downed Ukrainian military aircraft, which, as it turned out later, actually turned out to be a Maylazian Boeing that was flying to the Netherlands. I remember 2015, when Boris Nemtsov, an oppositionist who opposed the war, was killed by an automatic burst right in the center of Moscow, the Russian opposition died with him. Putin, who had completely lost his popularity by 2012, raised his rating as a result of the annexation of Crimea, it was such a "small victorious war". If in 2011 Putin's rating was 28%, then in 2015 it was more than 60%.
Russia does not want to allow the spread of the zone of influence of the West to its borders, and at the same time Russia is trying to maintain its zone of influence, but the military threat that Putin is talking about does not come from the West. That is, Russia wants to remain an independent country and not allow itself into the zone of influence of the West. However, here the Russian leadership makes a fatal mistake - due to the fact that Russia resists the growth of the zone of influence of the West, Russia receives sanctions and restrictions, Russia is isolated from the World economy, despite the fact that Russia does not really produce anything except resources, the buyer of which still needs to be found, and depends on imports. And Russia, receiving sanctions from the West, is isolated, and Putin is forced to flee to China to bow. I.e. if Russia is not a zone of influence of the West, Russia will simply become a colony of China, and this is even worse. Back in 2014, China took advantage of Russia's position. In 2015, Russia laid an insanely expensive gas pipeline to China, and the Chinese bought gas from us much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese buy oil from Russia much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese cut down forests cheaply in Russia, produce building materials at home, and sell the lowest quality boards made of sawdust to Russia. Relations between Russia and China are absolutely unequal, China regards Russia not as an equal partner, but as a colony, a resource appendage. China is simply taking advantage of the position of Russia, which quarrels with the whole world. It is foolish to think that China is an ally of Russia. The Chinese have always been duplicitous, cunning and expectant, and they have always stuck a knife in the back of the Russians, as it was in the 1950s, when China broke off all relations with the USSR, and this after Soviet soldiers liberated them from the Japanese, the USSR provided the communist army in their civil war, and Soviet scientists gave they need a nuclear bomb. The problem is that no one will come to the aid of Russia, isolated because of this war, if the Chinese want to cross the border. This is a complete failure of Russia's foreign policy. Russia will lose its economy due to sanctions, our standard of living will soon be lower than in Brazil. And the war itself is taking place between fraternal peoples who have kinship ties. And it will not be possible to occupy Ukraine - they will want independence. We'll just get a territory populated by partisans who hate us. This is a disaster, Russia lost the war before it started. Even in the first second of the war, Russia had already lost it, when no one had died yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Spartan-jg4bf Russians have problems with logistics, because Putin was thinking, that the morale of Ukrainian nation is low, that Ukrainians are supressed by their government, and he would take Ukraine in 3 days. This is why Russians didn't prepared supplies and didn't built infrastructure for supplies before they invaded Ukraine. Also Russians don't have numerical advantage - Ukrainian land army is 160 thousand soldiers, while Russia had
~ 120 thousand in the first day on invasion. The attacker side don't have numerical advantage and don't have logistics. Don't forget, that Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training and equipment, while the attacker side always suffers more casualities, than defensive side. There is no wonderful, that Russian invasion slowed, but this don't denies, that Russian invasion at now goes very successful for Russia - they took Kherson and encercled many Ukrainian cities, cutting off Ukrainian army from supplies. Also, Ukrainians have morale boom, while Russians don't want to fight against brother nation, where they have relatives. Russians at now would reinforce and supply forces, and later would strike the second punch. US still didn't interveve - they have played role, that goes closely to zero in conflict to this day
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aluisious Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
@Max-kd2gh I was wrong when I said in March that reinforcements would help the Russians win. Because the Russians didn't have any reinforcements at that time. Russia fought without mobilization until September 21, and conscripts still do not take part in the war. Roughly speaking, Russia did not fight against Ukraine in full force for the first 7 months, using only 1/3 of its ground forces. On February 24, the ratio of the number of the two armies was equal, despite the fact that the defending side has an advantage in losses, other things being equal. However, on September 21, Putin announced mobilization. He announced it late, because Ukraine has been mobilizing since February 24, and the Ukrainian army has grown significantly in numbers over the 8 months of the war. Actually, Ukraine's victories and Russia's failures at the front are due stupidly to the fact that the Ukrainian army has a numerical advantage of one and a half to two times. There is a lot of Ukrainian cannon fodder, Russian artillery does not have time to shoot everyone, thanks to the numerical superiority of the Ukrainian army wins. But nothing, Russia has announced mobilization, now the Russian army will grow in number, and Ukraine will not win this war. The population of Russia is 3.5 times larger than the population of Ukraine. The Russian economy before the war was 10 times larger than the Ukrainian one, while the Ukrainian economy suffered much more from the war than the Russian one from sanctions. Russia's military-industrial complex is huge. Ukraine will not win this war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
Putin believed in his own propaganda about the alleged Bandera in Ukraine, and thinking that the Ukrainian people were suppressed by their state, Putin expected to take Ukraine in 3 days. This is evidenced by the words of Russian propaganda (I live in Russia), as well as the situation at the front now. Russian military command apparently didn't prepared sufficient supplies, and the Russian troops don't have any numerical superiority over the Ukrainian army, although the attacking side suffers greater losses than the defending side. At the same time, Ukrainians have high morale, and Russians are demoralized and don't want to fight with the fraternal people. The Russian army is advancing without normal supplies and doesn't actually establish control over the territory, moving with the help of convoys vulnerable to ambushes on the roads. And after 2 weeks, the Russian army got bogged down, having just reached Ukrainian cities and achieved average success - Kherson and Melitopol were occupied, Mariupol and Chernihiv were taken in encirclements. There is no supply in the encirclements. And the Ukrainian troops in the encirclements are doomed.
Russia need to reinforce the Ukrainian theather and form the frontline, stopping the attack by roads and establishing control over the territories. Russians need to build supply infastructure. When Russians doing this, Ukrainians would have opportunity to mobilize manpower and counterattack. Russia would win this war, but there would be high casualities from both sides and the war would last for a long time. Of course, the real fighting capability of a Russian army is much and much higher, Russians showed themselves not well in Ukraine only because of small numbers, low motivation of Russian soldiers to fight against brother people, and poor supplies, because Russian command wanted to take Ukraine in 3 days.
There is possibility that Russia would accept a peace threaty, like in 2008 - when Russia didn't fully conquerred Georgia and peace threaty was made. The only difference, is that Russian army in 2008 wasn't defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voidwalker9223 during the Afgan war Russians also didn't wanted to fight. This war was totally unpopular in the USSR, and this is why Soviet government didn't had an opportunity to send a huge force to Afganistan or provide the offensive - during the war in Afganistan Soviet soldiers rarely fought, and the scale of Soviet force in Afganistan wasn't that big.
The war in Afganistan de facto was a civil war, where the Islamic population fought against communist government in Cabul. De facto all fighting during this war was commited by the people's army of socialist Afganistan, suppourted economically by USSR, while Soviet troops fought rarely - USSR lost 15 thousand troops in 10 years. Soviets were controlling only roads and urban areas, while the invasion of other parts of Afganistan was impossible due to the lack of manpower, Soviets had lack of manpower, because the war was unpopular, invasion was impossible due to the mountain terrain, Islamic fanatic resistance of all population, including children. De facto all war in Afganistan was like: Soviets without resistance entered the cities and roads in Afganistan in the first few days of war, and that's all. After this Afganish socialist army was fighting a civil war against Islamists, while Soviets for 10 years were holding their position and were doing nothing. Soviets were controlling roads and cities, and there weren't even attempts to occupie other territories because of mountain terrain, that is impossible to cross with army with tanks and vehicles, because Soviets didn't had manpower, and because Islamists showed the level of resistanse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d993s This is a complete failure. Maybe not military, but a failure. Let's remember why Russia started the war with Ukraine back in 2014 - Russia started the war to prevent NATO from expanding to the East. Putin has said and says that Russia is afraid of NATO expansion. However, let's think, is NATO a threat to Russia, which has nuclear weapons? The question is rhetorical - no. The democratic powers of the West will never go to war without a good reason, especially a war against a country with nuclear weapons that will incinerate them, which Russia is capable of doing. So, there is no military threat to NATO. It means that Russia is not concerned about security in the issue of NATO expansion, but about spheres of influence - in 2013-14, a democratic revolution took place in Ukraine, the corrupt President Yanukovych was overthrown, and since then Ukraine has been striving for democracy, wanted to join NATO and the EU, i.e. Russia risked losing its zone of economic and political influence. That is why in 2014 Russia made the first attempt to invade and seize Ukraine - when Russian special services and the military seized administrative buildings in the Eastern regions of Ukraine inhabited by Russians, after which the Crimean, Donetsk and Lugansk Republics were proclaimed. In Crimea, the Ukrainian military, who did not want to fight with the Slavic brothers, agreed with the Russians and evacuated, after which Crimea entered Russia, but they did not negotiate in the Donbas and the war began, which was waged by Russia and the rebels, although support for the idea of separation from Ukraine in the regions of Eastern Ukraine was and is actually low. I am Russian, and I myself remember how in 2014 they told us on TV that the rebels would now seize Kiev and "liberate Ukraine", they told us on TV about the downed Ukrainian military aircraft, which, as it turned out later, actually turned out to be a Maylazian Boeing that was flying to the Netherlands. I remember 2015, when Boris Nemtsov, an oppositionist who opposed the war, was killed by an automatic burst right in the center of Moscow, the Russian opposition died with him. Putin, who had completely lost his popularity by 2012, raised his rating as a result of the annexation of Crimea, it was such a "small victorious war". If in 2011 Putin's rating was 28%, then in 2015 it was more than 60%.
Russia does not want to allow the spread of the zone of influence of the West to its borders, and at the same time Russia is trying to maintain its zone of influence, but the military threat that Putin is talking about does not come from the West. That is, Russia wants to remain an independent country and not allow itself into the zone of influence of the West. However, here the Russian leadership makes a fatal mistake - due to the fact that Russia resists the growth of the zone of influence of the West, Russia receives sanctions and restrictions, Russia is isolated from the World economy, despite the fact that Russia does not really produce anything except resources, the buyer of which still needs to be found, and depends on imports. And Russia, receiving sanctions from the West, is isolated, and Putin is forced to flee to China to bow. I.e. if Russia is not a zone of influence of the West, Russia will simply become a colony of China, and this is even worse. Back in 2014, China took advantage of Russia's position. In 2015, Russia laid an insanely expensive gas pipeline to China, and the Chinese bought gas from us much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese buy oil from Russia much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese cut down forests cheaply in Russia, produce building materials at home, and sell the lowest quality boards made of sawdust to Russia. Relations between Russia and China are absolutely unequal, China regards Russia not as an equal partner, but as a colony, a resource appendage. China is simply taking advantage of the position of Russia, which quarrels with the whole world. It is foolish to think that China is an ally of Russia. The Chinese have always been duplicitous, cunning and expectant, and they have always stuck a knife in the back of the Russians, as it was in the 1950s, when China broke off all relations with the USSR, and this after Soviet soldiers liberated them from the Japanese, the USSR provided the communist army in their civil war, and Soviet scientists gave they need a nuclear bomb. The problem is that no one will come to the aid of Russia, isolated because of this war, if the Chinese want to cross the border. This is a complete failure of Russia's foreign policy. Russia will lose its economy due to sanctions, our standard of living will soon be lower than in Brazil. And the war itself is taking place between fraternal peoples who have kinship ties. And it will not be possible to occupy Ukraine - they will want independence. We'll just get a territory populated by partisans who hate us. This is a disaster, Russia lost the war before it started. Even in the first second of the war, Russia had already lost it, when no one had died yet.
1
-
1
-
@d993s Russia does not want to allow the spread of the zone of influence of the West to its borders, and at the same time Russia is trying to maintain its zone of influence, but the military threat that Putin is talking about does not come from the West. That is, Russia wants to remain an independent country and not allow itself into the zone of influence of the West. However, here the Russian leadership makes a fatal mistake - due to the fact that Russia resists the growth of the zone of influence of the West, Russia receives sanctions and restrictions, Russia is isolated from the World economy, despite the fact that Russia does not really produce anything except resources, the buyer of which still needs to be found, and depends on imports. And Russia, receiving sanctions from the West, is isolated, and Putin is forced to flee to China to bow. I.e. if Russia is not a zone of influence of the West, Russia will simply become a colony of China, and this is even worse. Back in 2014, China took advantage of Russia's position. In 2015, Russia laid an insanely expensive gas pipeline to China, and the Chinese bought gas from us much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese buy oil from Russia much cheaper than the world average prices. The Chinese cut down forests cheaply in Russia, produce building materials at home, and sell the lowest quality boards made of sawdust to Russia. Relations between Russia and China are absolutely unequal, China regards Russia not as an equal partner, but as a colony, a resource appendage. China is simply taking advantage of the position of Russia, which quarrels with the whole world. It is foolish to think that China is an ally of Russia. The Chinese have always been duplicitous, cunning and expectant, and they have always stuck a knife in the back of the Russians, as it was in the 1950s, when China broke off all relations with the USSR, and this after Soviet soldiers liberated them from the Japanese, the USSR provided the communist army in their civil war, and Soviet scientists gave they need a nuclear bomb. The problem is that no one will come to the aid of Russia, isolated because of this war, if the Chinese want to cross the border. This is a complete failure of Russia's foreign policy. Russia will lose its economy due to sanctions, our standard of living will soon be lower than in Brazil. And the war itself is taking place between fraternal peoples who have kinship ties. And it will not be possible to occupy Ukraine - they will want independence. We'll just get a territory populated by partisans who hate us. This is a disaster, Russia lost the war before it started. Even in the first second of the war, Russia had already lost it, when no one had died yet.
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and equal life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier, having lesser soldiers, than Russia. Even after sanctions Russian economy is still more effective. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't really better trained, than Russian army, despite the fact that Ukrainians were trained by NATO officers - Ukraine don't had economical resources to organize millitary exercizes, and if Ukrainian army is better trained than Russian, the differense isn't huge.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
I think that the corruption isn't the real reason of Russian failure, because Ukraine is also very corrupt country. Before the war Ukraine was economically more poor than Russia (in terms of currensy and international trade, but life standarts were +- equal) and Ukrainian government isn't lesser corrupt, than Russian. So, the corruption couldn't be the reason of Russian failure, because Ukrainian millitary also was very corrupt before the war.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesense, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government - Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq. Also, US had economical superiority over isolated in 1991 Iraq by DOZENS of times.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you are fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and army of 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brusanan what about the massive civillian deaths from the US invasion of Iraq? US soldiers are also Naz/s? A lot of civillians were dying in the conflicts, led by America. So, if you consider civillian deaths as a factor, after which you can call someone as a Naz/, so, Americans are Naz/s, because they were massively killing civillians in Iraq, Vietnam and Lybia. During the Vietnam war American aviation was spreading the chemical and bactereological wepons over the Vietnamese territory, including villages and cities. Agent orange, the chemicat, that causes scary mutaions of body of the infants. Hirosima and Nagasaki. The civillian deaths can't be called the genocide, and the commiters can't be named Naz/s, because artillery crew don't know, where the shell would fall. The genocide is the situation, when you target is killing of civillians, but at now in Ukraine the situation is different. Russians are targeting the millitary objects, but from accidential hits civillians are also suffering. According to your logic, Americans are main Naz/s in the World, because this is America, who caused most of civillian deaths in the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warbringer5554 are you an millitary expert in terms of the quality of Chinese army? They have machineguns from wood? The equipment and vehicles aren't such important as the quality of training, morale and preparation. Good examples - WW2. Great Britain won the air battle against Germany in 1940 by using quality of training, radars, new tech in pilot equipment and governmental management - massive production of aircrafts growth in just 2 months. In the start of the battle Britain had 800 planes, while Germany had 3000. Good example is Soviet Union, Finland and Germany. USSR on 22nd june 1941 had more tanks, than entire World combined - 24 thousand. Germany had 6 thousand tanks. But Soviet army was crushed because of low morale and poor traininig, because of bad management. The war proves the loyality of population for their government. Stalin was killing Russian peasants by hunger for industrialization in 1932-33. Stalin was providing massive purges. The life standarts of the Soviet population fell during the rule of Stalin for more investements into economy. And when the war started, Soviet army, that was built on this Russian peasants, simply surrendered without serious resistance and fight. The French soldiers in 1940 were lions compared to poor, shameful and low Soviet resistance. The governmental system effectivity is one of the major factors of millitary success, because the army is built on masses of simple people. And the loyality of people to their government is a major factor in the army. The Napoleon main weapon was the morale and loyality of his army. The Chinese nation at now have morale boom - 30 years ago China was the poorest country, and in just 30 years they have seen big economical growth. Chinese population at now fully suppourt its government and politicians. While Western society at now living in the morale crisis. Westerners aren't moraly prepared for a war. Look at Chinese patriotism and protests in Canada, BLM...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while Ukraine is the largest land millitary in Europe after Russia. Ukraine have far more tanks, than Germany, Poland, Britain or France. Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of training, logistics and equipment, but Ukraine have worser economy and life standarts, than Russia. So, Ukraine have lower ammount of economical resources per every soldier. If the quality of troops is equal, according to the law of millitary science attacking side is suffering more casualities. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia, Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian army.
The only 2 reasons, why Russian invasion had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relatives in Ukraine, probably some Russian soldiers have relarives in Ukraine, and war is totally unpopular in Russia. Russian soldiers are mentally and morally supressed, they don't want to fight against brother Slavic people. Opposite - Ukrainians have moral boom, they are fighting for their homeland.
2) Russian command probably believed in its own propaganda, and commanders in Kremlin were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days without resistance, and Russian troops would be met with flowers. And Russian command simply didn't prepared for a war - Russians didn't planned, that they would face the resistance, they thought that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and this is why Russians at now have poor logistics and preparation.
Russia have a population of 146 million people, while Ukraine have the population of 40 million. The life standarts, economy, corruption, level of training in the army, logistics and millitary productions in the Russia and Ukraine are in the same level. But Ukrainians have the morale boom, while Russians are supressed, and Russians weren't prepared for the real war, they were thinking that they would be met with flowers by Ukrainians.
The comparison with Iraq is nonesence, because Iraq was technologically backward compared to the US, and Iraqish population had low morale and didn't wanted to fight for their government -, Iraqish soldiers were surrendering without a fight. US army was preparing for the invasion for a long time, and US had huge economical superiority. Also, Iraq geographically is a flat territory - the desert, very good for tanks and good for rocket weapons targeting. Also, Iraq didn't had suppourt from other countries, while Ukraine have such suppourt. And even in such conditions US took a MONTH to occupie Iraq.
Russian invasion at now goes in absolutely normal speed, just how it could be, when you fighting against the largest Europen country with 40 million population and 200 thousand troops.
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian - Russian and Ukrainian armies have the same level of corruption, training and logistics. In terms of economy and life standarts Ukraine is much worser than Russia, so, Ukraine have lower economical resources per every soldier, than Russia. The only 2 reasons, why Russia had failed:
1) Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother Slavic people, a lot of Russians have relarives in Ukraine, this war totally unpopular in Russia, and Russian army have low morale, because they don't want to shoot the brother people.
2) Russian command probably believed in their own anti-Ukrainian propaganda, and they were thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine in 3 days, and they attacked Ukraine without planning to face the resistance, without planning the logistics and without numerical superiority. Russians had invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority, while attcking side by all laws of millitarian science is suffering more casualities. This war isn't showing to us the real fighting capability of the Russian army.
Russian army isn't lesser trained, than Ukrainian. The logistics in the Russian army aren't worser than in Ukraine. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt than Russia. Ukrainian economy before the war was worser, than Russian economy after the war and sanctions. Stop watching the propaganda about "incompetence" of the Russian army - Ukrainian army isn't better trained, than Russian. The only reason of Russian failure is a low suppourt of the war from the population of Russia and unprepared invasion.
1
-
1
-
Ukrainian army's logistics and training aren't better than Russian, while Ukrainian economy is much worser than Russian in terms of life standarts and effectivity of labor, so Ukraine have much lower economical resources per every soldier than Russia. So, if you think that Russia would be exhausted, so, Ukraine would be exhausted 3 times to the time while this would happen.
The war in Ukraine doesn't shows to us the real fighting capability of Russian army. Russian failure in Ukraine have two reasons: Russian soldiers aren't motivated to fight against brother people, and Russian command didn't prepared for a war - they were probably thinking, that they would take all of Ukraine without a fight in 3 days. And Russians didn't prepared for a war. Russians invaded Ukraine without numerical superiority and without preparing the logistics. Probably, Putin believed in his own propaganda about "n-zis in Ukraine that are supressing their own people" , and probably Putin was thinking, that Ukrainian people would meet Russian soldiers with flowers.
This war in Ukraine isn't showing to us the real fighting capability and real quality of Russian army. In reality, Russian army isn't lesser trained than Ukrainian and isn't lesser equipped.
At now Russia is supplying frontline by reinforcements, and with numerical superiority on the Russian side Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance.
1
-
@BillNye617 Russia can't deploy more troops because Putin wants to hold stability inside Russia, Putin doesn't want to provoke Russian population, he doesn't want a revolution or massive protests, he is trying to hold stability, Putin is afraid of its own people, so this is why Russia isn't using conscripts in the war, and there is no mobilization. Actually there was one wave of mobilization in september 2022, but it was forced due to situation on the frontline, Putin simply didn't had a choise because there was significant numerical superiority on the Ukrainian side and with superiority in numbers of troops of 2:1 Ukraine conducted very succesfull offensive operation in Kharkiv region. So Putin had 2 bad choises - lose the war or declare mobilization, risking in instability inside Russia, and Putin was forced to choose the second option and he was lucky enough. But after one wave of mobilization of reserve personel there was no mobilization in Russia for 2 years now. Russia can't deploy a force of few hundreeds of thousands soldiers, instead Russia is relying on stream of volunteers who are fighting for money, and because Russia at now have 4 times more population than Ukraine Russian stream of volunteers is equal to Ukrainian quantity of mobilized men, and both Russia and Ukraine are able to replace casualities and even grow in numbers of troops. I think this policy wouldn't change and BOTH Russia and Ukraine will be unable to achieve any aditional success until the war will be frozen after negotiations or without them. But in fact it is fair to say that Russian army isn't that weak that Western media is saying, Russian army isn't weak, in fact Russia was just fighting not in full capability without mobilization, having less troops than Ukraine throuout all war. If Russia fought in full capability, there could have been total mobilization in Russia, and with 3:1 numerical superiority on Russian side there is no way how Ukraine could have held for more than half of a year. But in reality Russia wouldn't do it due to political reasons and in fact Russia had smaller invading army already on first day of war, and what is more interesting, Russia was able to advance and capture territory while having smaller army in the start of the war
1
-
1
-
@BillNye617 according to your logic
German, French amd British during WW1 were weak because they spent a lot of time and manpower to capture small territories. In reality these armies weren't weak, it were most capable armies in the World, but there was a stalemate in WW1 because of perfect balance of power and new technologies and delay to adapt to this new technologies. The quality, the capability of army is not time to capture territory, quality of army is casuality ratio. Russia is capturing little amount of territories in huge time, but Russia is advancing with less manpower than defending Ukrainian side and Ukrainian casualities are 1.5-2 times higher than Russia. So Russia have chosen long term attrition warfare instead of classical.
During the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union, Soviet army was weak, but not because high casualities, but because of casuality ratio. For every one Finnish soldier 6 Soviet soldiers have died. Casuality ratio was 6 to 1. Soviet army was simply poorly trained and had bad command and communications, while being well equipped and having lots of vehicles.
In case of Russo-Ukrainian war, Russian army isn't poorly trained. Before the war Russian contract volunteer soldiers had average level of training, the same equipment as Ukrainian forces. Russia had superiority in artillery, while artillery is a God of War, artilley causes 90% of casualities in all wars, but Russia was backward from Ukraine in FPV drones at the start of the war.
War is mathematics with many variables, and mililtary analysis could be based on just two mathematical variables - quality and quantity. For example we have two fighting armies, each of 1000 soldiers, but first army have 2 times more quality, so the first army will defeat the second army. But in case if second army have 3 times more manpower, the second army will defeat the first army, because their quality, their combat capability is 2 times lower, while quantity is 2 times higher. In case if two armies have equal quality, the attacking side will suffer 1.5 times higher casualities than defending side. But if attacking side have overwhealming superiority in quality, attacking side could suffer less casualities than defending side, like it was during the Iraq war, when United States had huge aviation advantage. In this war USA simply bombed alll Iraqi army from the sky, and attacking American side suffered 40 TIMES LESS casualities than defending Iraqi side. For each attacking American soldiers 40 Iraqi soldiers have died, while American ground forces were simply on vacation with very little combat and captured all Iraq in one month, while Iraq in terms of territory and military is comparable with Ukraine, not considering the Western aid to Ukraine.
This means that aviation at now is God of War like artillery, and 90-99% of your enemy ground forces could be destroyed with precise aviation of artillery firepower.
Russia, unlike USA, isn't whealthy enough to use aviation massively, so Russia relies to more old and cheap artillery. Russia is producing 3 times more artillery shells than entire NATO alliance.
In the start of the war Russia had many superiorities and many weaknesses, like Ukraine, so in fact casuality ratio between Russia and Ukraine was nearly equal. Quality of army means casuality ratio, but not how much time you are fighting to take one mile further. Because according to your logic Ukrainian army is also weak and uncapable, because Ukrainian army is also unable to capture huge territories, and in 2023 counteroffensive operation Ukraine wanted to take Crimea, but in reality was unable to take Tokmak, and in half of a year offensive Ukraine suffered 50 thousand casualities capturig 10 villages and famous Rabotino. Russian army isn't weak, and Ukrainian army with NATO support isn't weak, both armies at now are uncapable to conduct offensives because of FPV drones, FPV drones and sattelites are simply showing all movements of troops and vehilces in the rear, as a result in became very risky to conduct huge offensives, because enemy will see it and prepare, so both Russia and Ukraine are adapting to new technologies and using new tactic - small groups offensives. But you can't capture huge territories and can't develop offensive with small group. This is like WW1 stalemate due to delay in adapting to new technologies. German, French amd British armies weren't weak, it were most capable armies in the World, but there was a stalemate because of perfect balance of power and new technologies. And Russian army isn't weak, because after the collapse of USSR there was a World trend of reducing the size of the army, and in 1990s Russia have signed a theaty with NATO to reduce size of ground forces. So, in 1989 Soviet Union had an army of 5 million soldiers, and Russia is a half of USSR in terms of population. And Russia have reduced its army to 1 million personell, among which only 440 thousand are infantry, marines and airborne troops. 560 thousand Russian military personell are non-combat servicemen, they serve in navy, nuclear forces, chemical forces, aviation, anti-air, artillery and etc.. So in fact Russian army in 2021 was just 440 thousand troops, from which half are conscripts who don't participate in the war, and in the start of the war Russia had a ground force of just 200 thousand soldiers, and not all of them invaded Ukraine. So, in fact it were like 150 thousand Russian soldiers + 30 thousand from Donetsk and Luhansk PRs against 240 thousand Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine, unlike Russia, is technologically backward country that lost all Soviet industry, so Ukraine don't have navy, have little amount of aviation and no nukes, little amount of anti-air. So, if in Russian army before the war 56% of military personel were non-combat, in the Ukrainian army less than 8% were non-combat, 20 thousand of 240 thousand. Russia had smaller army than Ukraine already on the first day of the war and Russia is fighting without mobilization with only volunteers, while Ukraine was massively mobilizing since the start of the war. And Russia was able to capture huge amounts of territories in the first month of the war.
In fact, Ukrainian army even before the war was strongest in Europe. Ukraine had 240 thousand military personell, 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery pieces already at the start of the war. For comparison British army is 70 thousand soldiers and 200 tanks, German army is 80 thousand soldiers and 300 tanks, French army is 105 thousand soldiers and 400 tanks. Ukrainian army was numerically as big as French, German and British armies combined. At now Ukraine have an army of 1 million military personel with huge NATO support. Ukraine already ran out of Soviet artillery shells and fully relies on NATO supplies. Russia produces 3 times more artillery shells than entire NATO combined, and NATO gives to Ukraine 50-60% of its shells production. While Russia have nearly 600 thousand military personell. Russian army grew up in numbers for 3 times since the start of the war, and Russian soldiers at now are very experienced combat veterans with huge combat experience of 3 years of war. 600 thousand Russian soldiers with very good training and experience at now VS 200 thousand Russian soldiers with average training and no experience at the start of the war. While German, French and British armies are the same small forces with few dozens of tanks, and NATO is wasting half of its ammunition to fight Russia in hybrid proxy war. And you are saying that Russia is uncapable of fighting
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BillNye617 I make an analysis and compare army power, I'm not saying that Russia will defeat NATO, Russia doesn't want and doesn't need to go to war with NATO.
Ukraine is smaller nation, but Russia is fighting without mobilization while Ukraine is mobilizing, so 4 times bigger Russia is fighting with 25% of its capability and everything is balanced so no one side is able to capture huge territories. But in recent months it seems like the balance of power is slowly shifting towards Russia, and Ukrainian defensive line in the Donbass with hundreeds of bunkers and defensive lines that they have built for 8 years is slowly falling to the Russian advancing forces. I think situation for Ukraine will be worser and worser with time, but when Russia will be very close to victory Western states will intervene. I think you know that French president Macron in february 2024 have said about deployment of French and European troops in Ukraine in case if Russian forces will make a breakthrougth of Ukrainian lines. So, the attritional warfare will continue for approximately one more year, I think at now we are closer to end of the war than to begining, and when Russia will be one step from the victory and Ukraine will be wasteland with no male population after 20 waves of mobilization, Russia will be stopped by NATO with threat of NATO intervening directly. And there will be negotiations and conflict will be frozen. Also, interesting fact about American help to Ukraine - American army is strongest in the World, USA have much higher military capabilities than Russia. But instead of giving needed weapons to Ukraine, Western military aid to Ukraine is very small. After two and a half years of war Ukraine still didn't received F-16, and West gave few dozens of outdated tanks from 1990s after more than one year of war. I think it is clear that Ukraine was simply tricked and blackmailed by the United States. Just imagine that you are United States president. Russia is your strategic enemy, and Russia went to war with some country 90% of American population didn't know about. So, you are giving weapons to this country. But what is your purpose, why are you giving weapons? It is very NOT PROFITABLE to the West to allow Ukraine to win. It is not profitable for USA to defeat Russia quickly. For United States it is profitable to continue this war for as long as possible, so this is exactly why American military help is very small - United States don't want Ukraine to win this war, and United States themselves wouldn't allow Ukraine to win, USA are giving not enough amount of weapons to Ukraine in order to this war last for few years, and Ukraine was tricked and blackmailed by the West and West is using Ukraine as a cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blakumvanrollope7480 this is not conscripts, this is mobilized troops, they are not conscripts. Conscripts are healthy men of age from 18 to 30 who are being called to duty forcefully by the state for 1 year. Mobilized are men from 19 to 60 who served conscript army in the past, in Soviet army, in 1990s, in 2000s, in 2010s, and they are marked in reserve army consisting of 3 million personell. They were forcefully mobilized into army. Russian conscripts don't participate in war but there was one wave of mobilization in Russia two years ago. Because Putin is afraid to declare mobilization for the second time, there is no rotation of mobilized troops, and they are exhausted right now, they are fighting for 2 years straight with no rest and no rotation. Also these mobilized men had lack of preparation because situation on the frontline was critical, and government used them as fodder to fill the gaps and stop Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv region.
Only little amount of Ukrainian soldiers are training in the West. Also, Western states don't have combat experience of modern warfare. Western countries fought against technologically backward poorly equipped and poorly trained enemy 20 years ago in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Western countries don't have such combat experience as Russia and Ukraine, so Ukrainian forces trained inside Ukraine by Ukrainian officers proven do be more capable on the battlefield than Western trained. But enormous mobilization in Ukraine left newly mobilized troops with few days of preparation, while Russian volunteers have at least 3 months. So in different periods of war situation was different
1
-
1
-
@Bdhdhwjwj but no one being mobilized. And in fact this law couldn't work without martial law and there is no martial law. So, actually you can just ignore the government if they try to mobilize you, because in fact according to the Russian law government itself violates its own laws - war without martial law and state of war status, mobilization of reserve personell without war status or martial law, start of military operation without approval of upper stage of parlament. So, during mobilization some people just ignored this and everything was fine with them, more than a half of mobilized simply came volunteerly after Putin declared that mobilized would receive the same payment as volunteers, and in documents they are marked as volunteers. In Islamic regions of Russia there was violation of human rights and somewhere people were forced to come, but actually these people had rights, they simply uneducated and didn't know that they have rights. Caucasus is very traditionalist and poor society with mediveal clan system, so if head of the clan said something everyone else is executing the order
1
-
1