Comments by "Arty" (@arty5876) on "How does the Ukraine war compare to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and 1941 Operation Barbarossa?" video.

  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.
    8
  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.
    4
  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.
    4
  4.  @lordlubu3029  Ukraine have even worser economy, than Russia. Ukrainian logistics aren't better than Russian
    4
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. USA have 20 trillon $ economy, while Russia have 3.5 trillion $ economy
    2
  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.
    2
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Russian operarion in Georgia was something like NATO operation in Serbia - Albanians from Kosovo were fighting for their independence in bloody war, and NATO bombed Serbia for independence of Kosovo. The same thing was with Georgia - Abkhazia and Osetia were fighting for their independence, and Russia invaded Georgia to end the bloody war. Georgian troops were shooting to civillians in Abkhazia by heavy artillery, and Russian peacekeepers ended the war, and at now Ankhazia and Osetia are independent nations, recognized by Russia.
    2
  12. 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
  13. Ukraine isn't lesser corrupt, than Russia
    2
  14. 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
  15. There is nothing wonderfull, that Russians didn't captured big cities yet. In the World history cities always were the strongholds - Germans had reached Moscow in 4 months, but they didn't captured Stalongrad in 5 months. The city fighting is hell for attackers and best, that could happen with defenders. Russians probably don't have the manpower to occupie such strongholds.
    2
  16. 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
  17. Russians have logistics, but they didn't prepared it
    2
  18.  @lordlubu3029  India in terms of logistics, training and economy is even worser than Russia
    2
  19. 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
  20. I don't know who said you that Russia is "second World power"
    1
  21. 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
  22.  @benjamingutin9695  ok👍
    1
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27.  @vladibalan  yes. I'm not joking at now. Just yes. Russian army is demoralized and Russians didn't prepared for war, while Ukraine is a Europe largest country with 200 thousand soldiers. This war would be very bloody and would last very long for Russia, and the situation cannot be diffetent. Russians would make the low progress with heavy fighting. This is how this war would go at now.
    1
  28. 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
  29. Vietnam didn't had special operation force to kill American generals
    1
  30.  @JORMUNREKKR  I don't know how many Russian generals were killed
    1
  31. Russians have low morale only because they don't want to fight against brother people
    1
  32.  @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
  33.  @voidwalker9223  during the Chechen war the entire population of Russia was demoralized by the collapse of USSR and the crisis. Russian army was destroyed by economic collapse, and many officers were dismissed, because they were loyal to Soviet system and socialism, while Boris Eltsin was building the democrasy and capitalism, and many good commanders of the Russian army in the 90's were dismissed for low loyality.
    1
  34.  @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
  35.  @d993s  this voting in Crimea was completely falsificated. I don't know, which level of IQ you need to think that 96% of the population of Crimea, that have half of population as a Ukrainians. Read fully what I wrote. After Crimea and war of 2014 I was talking about China
    1
  36.  @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
  37. 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
  38. 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