Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Military Summary" channel.

@franktower9006 You can't hope to succeed with an armored push like this, without air superiority or at least an operational, effective air force - something that's not available to the AFU anymore. I guess that explains why the Russians have made such slow progress the past several months in their Donbas offensive and have relied so much on their artillery and missile forces. Because their airforce has largely been unable to gain air superiority and have been forced to be careful in coming too close to Ukrainian lines for fear of getting shot down. If the Ukrainian counter offensive gets stuck at the rivers and can't push on to the next objectives, the Russians will pick them apart with attack helicopters, ground attack planes, artillery and missiles. The Russian airforce hasn't been able to attack UA forces in a close support role in any real tangible way since the beginning of the war. Most of their strikes have been at long distances so that they don't get shot out of the sky by UA anti-air missiles. If the Russians are going to push the Ukrainians back its going to be mostly with soldiers and artillery as they've been doing during their Donbas offensive.
1
@cruiser6260 it was only the western media saying ukr has no chance in Feb, March. Obviously nato prepared for 8 yrs for this war. ALMOST EVERYONE was saying Ukrainians had no chance from the very beginning. From actual intelligence agencies down to armchair generals on Youtube and everywhere in between, nearly everyone was speculating WHEN and not IF the Ukrainian army would eventually break and cease to be an effective fighting force. The Duran channel before the invasion began didn't think the Russians would even really invade and said that the west was fearmongering when they kept reporting that the Russians looked like they were going to attack. Then when the invasion did actually happen, The Duran changed their tune and started talking about what would happen AFTER the fighting had ended because they were so sure that the Ukrainians wouldn't last beyond a few weeks at most. The point is there were plenty of people like the Duran who predicted this would be a relative easy victory and few gave the UA forces a chance long term. If you can find me even a few whether they're government or legit intelligence sources or armchair generals on Youtube or elsewhere that said from the beginning that the Ukrainians could stand up to the Russians and WOULD choose to do so instead of eventually folding, then please post the links to those people here. I'd really like to see it. Maybe there's 1 or 2 people out of a thousand who predicted this wouldn't be a short fight, but I doubt you'll even find 5% of people who stated that on the first day of the invasion. Again if you can find people who said this, please post it here so I can read it and give them their props.
1
@cruiser6260 you're asking me to prove a negative which is impossible. I guess a lot of commenters you saw all believed the msm. My point is that if there were any significant number of people who believed that the Ukrainians would hold out for longer than a few weeks and that eventually the Russians wouldn't win they were certainly in the very small minority that it would be difficult to find them saying so when the invasion started. The general opinion from most people from professional intelligence agencies to armchair generals is that the great Russian bear would overwhelm the Ukrainians eventually. Now if you look at Russia total military in number of ships, aircraft and vehicles and nukes and imagine all that brought to bear on ukr as shock and awe, then it's obvious going to be over in a few weeks. If instead you look at only 160k force and the size of Ukraine as im land mass, plus the second largest army in Europe after turkey, it's going to protracted. I believe at the time of the invasion the number of troops invading Ukraine was 200k plus from what I've heard. Also of course the story would be different if the Russians threw everything into the invasion, but they obviously couldn't do that when they have to keep a certain amount of troops back to defend and secure the rest of Russia and it takes a fair amount when its such a large country. Its pretty clear that the Russians believed that their troops would be better trained and equipped than their Ukrainian counterparts and that their aircraft and heavy equipment advantage would compensate for their smaller number of soldiers. And I'm pretty sure they didn't believe that Ukrainian army resistance wouldn't be so fierce and widespread as it turned out to be. And who knows maybe if the Russians weren't so ambitious and actually attacked the Donbas region and perhaps the south to Odessa perhaps they might've pulled it off. Or maybe if they had brought in alot more artillery and missile forces and bombarded the Ukrainians relentlessly from the beginning to try and break their lines and their spirit before moving in their armored forces they also might've succeeded. That's all in the past though and its too late to change things. Already I see ukr getting smarter with becoming more like guerrilla and insurgents already. My most likely guess is this will go on and on until it escalates to direct war with NATO. I don't doubt that the war can continue for a long while yet, but I DO doubt that NATO forces would get involved in the war and actually fight the Russians in direct combat especially on the ground. That would be insane and it would also be a guaranteed defeat for the Russians.
1
TEXOCMOTP Its even harder to take Russian sources seriously when every supply dump going up in smoke for them is 'just an accident bro'.
1
@alexandernorman5337 Yet you say the Ukrainians are the winners in the loss ratio. The Russians are 100% losing far more men and equipment than the Ukrainians are although that doesn't mean that Ukrainian casualties aren't significant too. I don't know how closely you've followed the war, but if you've watched the tons of videos that have come out of Ukraine you'd see that the Russians really don't care about the losses they take as long as they accomplish their objectives.
1
@Akrus15 The armies of France, UK and Germany are in a very horrible state and they have all together around 100k men they can send. All without real combat experience. They would face half a million Russians who have high intensity combat experience for two years now. Good luck lads!! France and UK have better trained men even if many of them might not have combat experience while Russia has men with combat experience, but many of them with little training. I'll put my money on NATO troops over Russian troops anyday and the only reason Russia is still fighting now is because they have no problems with throwing huge numbers of men away as long as they achieve their objectives. Also things are much different when you have an actually good airforce that can gain air superiority over your opponent.
1
@rogeroeyen Until about a month ago, Russia deployed about 80.000 contract soldiers in Ukraine, from which about 30.000 returned home because they were end of their six month contract. If that's what you want to believe then go right ahead. The fact is the Russians invaded with a 200,000+ army and they took heavy losses. You don't have to believe the media, you just have to look at the situation on the battlefield. The Russians were advancing early in the invasion and then once they retreated from the Kiev front, they haven't launched any significant armored attacks since. The Donbas and current Bakhmut offensives by the Russians have been largely infantry attacks supported by artillery and rockets with some airstrikes here and there. The days of the Russians large masses of tanks and IFVs has gone and now if they want to launch any major armor attacks in the future its going to be mostly with Cold War era tanks unless they choose to strip their other frontline units of armored vehicles. A team from the NYT counted (up to about a month ago) the Russian deaths by counting the number of funerals in Russia and couldn't come up with more than 8.000. You do realize that when you're fighting on the battlefield, when your troops die you're probably not going to recover all the bodies right? Especially when you're under fire and are retreating at best you're going to gather your wounded and leave your dead for the enemy to bury them. There are plenty of Ukrainians these days who are burying the dead from both sides and the Russians have been offered the bodies of some of their dead back and they have refused because bodies means proof of death and the families of those fallen soldiers would receive at least some compensation for having their loved one die in a meaningless war. Of course the Russians don't want to pay out so they won't take the bodies back. Ukraine is now on it's 7th deployment and they are drafting all men up to the age of 60, that says more than enough of how well they are doing. Pretty soon they are going to draft women and toddlers from kindergartens. The funny thing is many of the recent Russian mobilized troops don't look very young and there's numerous videos of them complaining about the lack of supplies, equipment and training given to them. Some of these new recruits who have already reached the frontlines have been captured by the Ukrainians. On the otherhand if you look at all the videos of Ukrainian troops in the past few months there hasn't been many old men fighting on the frontlines so if you have video proof of Ukrainian troops being very old men then please give me a link because I sure as heck haven't seen many of them on the frontlines recently.
1
@rogeroeyen The 200.000+ was mentioned by the western media and never confirmed by Russia. The number of 80.000 came directly from the Russian military leadership. After all the lying and excuses the Russians have made to try and explain away all their mistakes during the war you're still going to believe everything they say? Really? LOL! The thing is you don't have to listen to the media from either side, you just have to look at what has happened on the ground on the battlefield. Do you know why the 200,000+ Russian troop number is probably right? Because US and NATO intelligence is insanely good and they have the best spy satellites in the world. They can track every individual Russian unit from their home base all the way to the frontlines which is why they were sounding the alarm when Russia was building up its forces along Ukraine's borders and it didn't look like a military exercise as they claimed. Everyday NATO satellites could see the ever increasing number of barracks being put up and more armored vehicles, supply trucks and supply dumps coming in close to Ukrainian borders. In this day and age there's very few places that you can hide your intentions from the enemy and in the case of trying to hide from satellites its near impossible especially when you have such good satellites as NATO does. Heck even regular people like you and me can have access to high quality satellite images if you're willing to pay for it. Just go to a place like Maxar and you too can pay for great quality satellite images which is what some Youtubers have done when they were making some of their videos on the this war. That was also the reason why they deployed the 300.000 reservists.The age of 60 for the next deployment is coming directly from the Ukrainian MOD. Again if you can find me video proof of older Ukrainian men that are apart of the regular army that are fighting on the frontlines then please do post it as I'd genuinely like to see it. So far ever since the Ukrainians have begun their offensives in September, I haven't seen many old men fighting on the frontlines for Ukrainians outside of a few exceptions like a few vets from the foreign legion. Almost every other soldier is probably in their 20s and 30s for the most part. Also I doubt this will change anytime soon when all the new Ukrainian recruits are now being trained and equipped by NATO countries and it makes no sense to spend valuable time and resources to train middle aged men when you have plenty of young Ukrainians that you need to train ASAP. Just a couple of weeks ago the UK finished training 10,000 Ukrainians and they're now back in Ukraine ready to fight. https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1580244637284900864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw The problem that Ukraine has right now isn't a manpower problem, its a training and equipment problem which will slowly be fixed as more NATO instructors start training more Ukrainian troops. This is what the Russians are lacking where their mobilized troops are getting somewhere between little amounts of training to inferior training if they're actually being trained. Over time Ukraine's soldiers will get better in quality while the Russians will get progressively worse. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the results on the battlefield that have already happened the past couple of months and look at what will happen in the next few months and year. Russia right now will be lucky to stabilize the lines and stop the bleeding while the Ukrainians are continuing to plan and launch new attacks to regain their lost territory. Don't you think its interesting how many pro-Russian hacks like the idiots at the Duran said back in September when the Ukrainian offensives began that they declared the Kharkiv offensive was going to be small gains and that the Kherson offensive was a complete failure? Now a couple of months later how have their predictions turned out when the Ukrainians are nearly the outskirts of Kherson city looking to take it back? We shall soon see how things progress in the next few months and how well the new Russian reinforcements will do on the battlefield versus all the new Ukrainian troops that are currently going through NATO training and being equipped by them will do.
1
@kajuken Berli Tanks are very useful but need to be accompanied by infantry for maximum effect. This is true which is why the Russians failed so hard when their armored columns ran into significant Ukrainian defenses. With relatively little air support, poor logistics and not enough artillery support and their infantry and tanks not working together properly, they suffered heavy losses that they still haven't recovered from since. As I've said before there hasn't been a major Russian armored offensive ever since they retreated from the Kiev front. That's how much of a beating they took because their forces couldn't work together properly and perhaps even more importantly their logistical support was a complete disaster. Seriously its crazy to see how poor the logistics for the Russians are versus the US. Recently Wendover Productions made a couple of videos highlighting Russian vs US logistical support. US logistics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpPuJ_r8Xg Russian logistics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w The simple truth is that the US can fight anywhere in the world and support their forces properly while the Russians can barely fight beyond their own borders for more than a few weeks at best. They didn't know how supportive the general population would be of the SMO so they had to minimise casualties The truth of the matter was that Putin was counting on the Ukrainian forces to collapse quickly the same as they did during the Crimea situation and then later in the Donbas when they defeat Ukrainian forces relatively easily. Also they hoped the Ukrainian population would indeed welcome them or at least be neutral to them and not want to fight back. Both didn't happen and Putin and his generals' miscalculations have cost them dearly. If a generous 200,000 allied troops could conquer the amount of land they did without a unified command and mow away the UA army while using constant artillery barrages to soften UA defences; imagine what 300,000 more Russian troops can achieve under unified command and a larger budget due to partial mobilisation. The problem is the new recruits Russia are bringing in now are worse than their original force that they attacked with. On the otherhand thanks to increasing NATO help, new Ukrainian recruits are now getting NATO training and equipment in the UK and elsewhere from various NATO instructors who are ramping up the amount of troops they can train and equip so that they can get on the battlefield sooner. If Russia's new recruits can even stabilize the lines and stop Ukraine from making anymore significant gains that would be considered a major victory already let alone talking about counter attacks and retaking what they've lost. UA defences have been getting pounded for months, critical energy infrastructure has recently been targeted and UA troops, not having the luxury of rotation the Russians had, are pretty worn out. From a Russia perspective, now is when the real war is starting. The Ukrainians ARE rotating their troops out for rest which is why we've been seeing numerous heartfelt reunion videos of Ukrainian service men and women returning home to their families. In the coming months unless these new Russian troops are getting really good training and equipment, I don't see how they'll be able to stand up against ever increasing amounts of NATO trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.
1
@rogyn8484 Have you seen the videos coming out off Ukraine daily of how the Russians are throwing away their forces without seemingly a care in the world? If you followed the war closely you'd see that now all those reports are propaganda.
1
@hotstepper887 Russia have offered peace terms many times. So called 'peace terms' at the barrel of a gun to your head is never a fair deal. Ukraine can keep on fighting, but it needs more support. Heck if it had even this level of western support that we see now with western systems in their army at the beginning of the war, this conflict would've likely been over a long time ago or at least Ukraine wouldn't have lost as much territory as it did that it now will have a very hard time getting it all back. Imagine how massive the amount of damage the UA forces could've done to the army that was marching on Kiev at the beginning of the war if they had HIMARs since the beginning. It would be the destruction of this recent convoy times 100 and it probably would've significantly altered the war when Russia would've lost so many men and so much equipment before they could pull it back.
1
@Warren_Peace The only time that both sides would agree to a "status quote ante", which is what Ukraine wants, is if we are on a stalemate.... This SMO, however, is far from being one. It will likely be more or less a stalemate unless Ukrainians decide to stop fighting or the west stops supplying them. Why do you think Putin is hoping so hard that Trump gets elected and does what he says and end the war? Because if the US doubled down instead and sent more equipment and supplies to Ukraine, then this war would either not end or end with Russia achieving only partially what they wanted for huge losses that they won't recover from for many years if not decades.
1
Several months ago the Russians were supposed to have crushed most of the Ukrainian forces in the east with the massive 'cauldron' encirclement that never came. Heck the Russians couldn't even close the gap and cut off the Ukrainians in the much smaller Lysychansk salient a couple of months ago when many said that they should've retreated sooner to avoid being encircled and even then the Russians couldn't surround those UA forces. But now we're suppose to believe that FINALLY the Russians will surround these UA forces who are on the offensive? I guess we'll see in the coming weeks.
1
@tomk3732 The war entered "Syrian" phase where Russians mostly support DPR / LPR forces. As long as progress is made, they seem happy. In otherwards the Russians have turned to using DPR/LPR as cannon fodder because they've taken so many losses of their own and can only make limited advances at best in some areas. Also it doesn't help that they keep having so called 'accidents' with their supply dumps which makes it more difficult to keep their forces going in the field on top of all the armored and other vehicle losses they've taken.
1
@tomk3732 *Its not a belief - its clearly backed by facts on the ground. Russian allies are moving forward, Ukraine is sending untrained conscripts to patch holes while Russians are turning these conscripts into meat.* Please provide links to backup your claims that Ukraine is pushing untrained conscripts to the front to fight for them? I'd really like to read about it myself. So please post the links here if you have them. Also if you truly believe this is happening, then what does it say about the Russian army that they can't even beat these garbage untrained troops and make some major gains in Ukraine? Even with more equipment and supposedly better trained troops how is it possible that the Russians are still doing so poorly against inferior Ukrainian conscripts? And how many tanks Ukraine lost then??? Why is it so rare to see these tanks Ukrainians didn't have many tanks to lose to begin with before the war. They're a much smaller army with much less equipment of all kinds which is why the Russians felt they could take all of Ukraine easily and quickly. They found out this wasn't the case very early in the war and now they're paying the price. Why would fighting low intensity for Russia conflict be actually so bad? They are fighting in Ukraine, they are moving forward, their costs are minimized, winter is coming, Ukraine is devastated in like 10 different ways. Its bad because it costs tons of money and resources to keep a large army in the field and fighting. Its much cheaper to finish a war quickly and to send many of your soldiers back home than it is to keep them fighting in the field and having them spend tons of ammo and supplies. The Russians are doing it now because they have no choice. If they could they would've ended this war long ago. Again, Ukraine lost the war. They cannot take any land back. They are slowly pushed back while their country has zero investment, millions that run away and possible huge food shortages coming not counting having freezing pp in winter. Without any chance of turning this around its madness to continue. Even if it takes Russia say 2 years to reach Dnieper river they still will get there. They can just fortify and enjoy having 50% of Ukraine. What you say to that - Ukrainian victory? The Ukrainians have the will to fight and all they need is the equipment and the training to do so. As long as western countries are willing to keep Ukraine supplied and are helping them get better then they can't ever lose. Russia would have to throw much more forces into Ukraine to make major gains there, otherwise the Ukrainians can just wait until they get stronger and better trained before they launch a major offensive or if worst comes to worst they can be like the Taliban and outlast the Russians until they tire of losses and of war. Even today Russia can simply stop. They can just liberate Donbass and stop. What is Ukraine going to do? Seriously - how many years they can keep fighting without moving forward while expense for Russia is minimal? As I said above the expense for Russia IS NOT minimal as its very expensive to keep a army fighting in the field. This isn't going to turn into the Donbas fight the past 8 years where each side fires a few artillery shells against each other everyday. Its going to be continued large scale warfare until one side gives up and I really doubt the Ukrainians will give up as long as they receive support from around the world. If I were the Ukrainians I would at most only give up the Donbas and Crimea areas in negotiations for peace and have the borders return to pre-war lines. That's it. Everything else must be given back to the Ukrainians or else the war goes on forever and I don't think the Russians can last forever especially with all the tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, fighter aircraft they've lost and all the advanced weapons they've used up like guided missiles. You can't build those things overnight and it gets even harder when the sanctions are in place that can hurt you long term.
1
@pite9 The idea that Russia would attack with the intent to collapse the government, without having a plan B is crazy talk. Putin would never agree to a plan like that. Putin is an incredibly thorough and responsible person. He's not someone who wouldn't cover his flanks, especially not for something this big, which will define his legacy. If you've paid attention to his actions and politics over the last 20 years you'd know this. Well in this case he and his military staff were completely wrong. His plan was always to take all of Ukraine and getting rid of Zelensky and replacing him with a Lukashenko type of leader that would be his ally and do as he asked when needed. If he and his staff didn't grossly overestimate the ability of Russian forces and severely underestimate the Ukrainians will and ability to resist he wouldn't be stuck in this mess right now. The south did flip over to Russia. Russia destroyed Ukraine's main army during those first 2 weeks in the north. It's Ukraine's army that got crippled, not Russia's. Meanwhile they set up their positions in Donbass and encircled Mariupol. All of this happened very quickly before Ukraine got the chance to properly defend the south and Mariupol, or organize their northern forces properly. So all 3 fronts were very important and successful. The north could have went more smoothly and I'm sure they made some bad decisions along the way, but overall it wasn't a failure. The south was definitely where the Russians saw the most success and from some reports I've read it might've been helped by some Ukrainian sympathizers although who knows how many and how effective they might've been, but definitely the UA forces weren't as prepared in the south as they should've been and that's where they lost the most territory. Also even though Mariupol was a defeat and Ukraine lost some very good units in the fight, they did do their job in delaying Russians from further advancing towards Odessa and now that city is completely out of reach. The north however was a complete disaster and there's no sugar coating that one. The idea that Kiev would back down and welcome Russia, like in Crimea is crazy. You clearly have no clue about the regional politics of Ukraine and where their political and cultural loyalties lies. Crimea was a russian state within Ukraine. Everybody with a basic understanding of Ukraine knew this, and we also knew that Kiev was staunchely anti-Russia, and most definately would go to war in the event of an invasion. Who said anything about Ukrainians welcoming the invading Russians? The idea was to implement their own version of shock and awe in launching a quick attack into Kiev to either kill, capture or chase away Zelensky and his government. Imagine if that actually happened how different the war might've turned out? With Zelensky staying in the country that perhaps changed the war significantly in that Ukrainian morale and will to fight was maintained if not boosted and just as importantly if not moreso it convinced western countries that sending more military aid to Ukraine made sense rather than it being wasted. If Zelensky flees or is killed, I question that the west would be so eager to pour so many resources into helping UA forces to continue the fight. Who knows maybe even if Zelensky is removed the Ukrainian people might continue to fight, but how long can they do so if they're not supplied by the west? The point is the Russians threw a hail mary to try and make this invasion short and sweet and they failed and now they're stuck. In fact I'm sure that if Zelensky had agreed to some deal early on, the US neocons would have made sure to remove him by any means necessary, replacing him with someone who was willing to fight against Russia. Ukraine was setup to play this part. How could Ukraine 'play their part' if Russia didn't go insane and invade in the first place? No one wanted Russia to invade and yet they did it anyways and now they're paying the price. Hopefully that price will be so large that it will be many years before they can do something like this again and that you can't go rogue like this and not expect the world to react.
1
@Tanase Ionut From now on I do expect massive territorial gains from the Russian side combined with more and more damage on the Ukrainian power grid. I really doubt that the Russians will be able to launch anymore major offensive operations when they've lost so many armored vehicles and decently trained men. Russians can still do damage to Ukraine and they might launch some small attacks here and there, but its highly unlikely they're ever going to be able to attack on a large scale anymore and I would be surprised if they did. If Zelensky care just a little bit for his countrymen he should sue for peace as fast as possible to save the little that can be saved from Ukraine. Russia could end the war tomorrow if they would pull out of Ukraine. Simple as that. Instead Putin chooses to throw away more Russian lives for nothing while killing many more Ukrainians in the process.
1
@Belliger1991 I always wonder why the pro-Russian folks talk of Ukrainian losses, but never want to talk about Russian losses as if they didn't take even heavier casualties for continuing with this attack for so many months. Its like they pretend that the Ukrainians lost thousands, but in return the Russians barely lost any troops and equipment in the fight. How delusional do you have to be to think that?
1
@herrrmike I don't know how you can see the Russians barely crawling forward in small advances as being any but bad. If that's all they're able to do now, they're probably not going to be able to do much more in the future especially when they keep having 'accidents' within their supply lines.
1
@herrrmike But I will give you an analogy. Imagine a boxing match in which one of the fighters is pounding the other one round after round. Would you say that the fighter is not winning simply because the other one has not hit the canvass? Funny you bring up this analogy. What if this is a case of Rocky vs Ivan Drago where Drago looked so powerful and strong and near invincible and after landing blow after blow against Rocky, he's still standing and won't give up and fights back harder and harder as the match goes on? In the early rounds Drago looked unbeatable and now he's locked in a slugging match that he likely can't win. That's what's happening in Ukraine right now. The only way that the Ukrainians will lose at this point is if the west stops supporting them because it certainly doesn't look like they'll lose the will to fight anytime soon. That's what's happening in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are taking shots to the body every day. They are exhausted and disoriented. And soon they will hit the mat. Well if you're right then they should be surrendering very soon right? Russia should be curb stomping the Ukrainians in the coming weeks and months correct? If they can't do that against such a weak opponent who's on the brink of collapse then what does it say about the Russian army that they can't even beat someone so weak?
1
Sad to see that the only way Russia will end this war is for someone else to do it for him because his forces are so bad.
1
@omnadrener1 Russia went for broke from day 1 of this invasion and it blew up in their faces. As long as the west keeps supplying Ukraine and they keep training Ukrainian soldiers, the Russians are screwed. If they didn't have nukes, no one in the west would be afraid of them by now because of how much of an utter failure the Russian forces have been. The nukes are the only thing keeping Russia relevant on the global stage the same way its only reason why anyone cares about North Korea.
1
@omnadrener1 If the Russians could've declared full mobilization with little consequences or backlash they would've done it long ago. The very fact that they can take so many hits on the battlefield and still refuse to do so is because THEY DON'T WANT TO. That would be a complete admission that this war is going very badly for them and that this operation that they told their people wasn't going to be a huge deal is now indeed a huge deal to the point that they need to throw much more if not all their men and resources at Ukrainians in order to defeat them. We're talking about a supposed superpower army here and they can't even beat a vastly worse equipped Ukrainian army with little airpower at the beginning of the invasion. Only has the war gone on have the Ukrainians gotten more support to now where they can face the Russians and hold their own against them.
1
@oknevals You are obviously very clueless. First, Ukrainian losses are massive approaching 1000 man on heavy fighting days. Their armor is decimated and they are only surviving due to Western supply and RU moving slowly to avoid losses but also by operating with small force. If you believe that Ukrainian troop losses are huge, then you have to believe that Russian losses are as bad or even worse because attackers usually lose more going on the offense. Also Ukrainians didn't have a large armored force for Russia to decimate to begin with which is why their ability to launch a major attack like they're trying in Kherson is more like what the Russians are now doing. Namely gradual and over a period of time. On the otherhand the Russians have lost ALOT of vehicles and weapons systems including almost 1,000 tanks and these only losses that have been visually confirmed which means their actual losses are even higher. Think about that for a moment. Almost 1,000 tanks and over 5,000 other vehicle losses in about 5 months of fighting. Is it any wonder why they're now reduced to such a slow advance these days? This is war of artillery which is exactly what I expected from the start. I've been in something similar just on much smaller scale in every aspect. This was suppose to be a relative short campaign fought with a mobile army for the Russians until they screwed things up and lost so many of their vehicles that have no choice but to use more artillery and advance at a slow pace along a small portion of the front. Unless the Russians commit far more forces to the fight, their days of having large advances are pretty much over and if the Ukrainians and the west can build up UA forces properly then they can take back at least some of what they lost.
1
@oknevals You parroting some bullshit propaganda narrative only shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. I don't know about you, but I care more about the truth and accuracy than simply believing everything that supports the side that you cheer for. While I do support Ukraine and hope they can kick the Russians out, I'm more interested in seeing different perspectives and reading all the data and facts than simply cheering every Ukrainian victory and ignoring every setback and loss to them. I don't know maybe that's what you do when you're rooting for the Russians, but that's not what I do because what's the point? Its not like if you believe all the propaganda that it will change what's actually happening on the battlefield. Better to know the truth than to blindly support your side and later find out not everything was accurate. Just to add that that theory of attackers having higher losses is outdated just like the theory that attackers required at least three times more troops. Its not theory its fact that when you're fighting someone who is at about the same level as you, then you're probably going to suffer more than if you fight someone vastly inferior to you. The Ukrainians might be inferior in amount of equipment, but so far their troops have shown to be just as good if not better than Russian troops they're fighting. Modern warfare is all about survellance, manouver and firepower combined with air and anti-air support. Bunch of those armchair experts never had rifle in their hands. I agree and so far especially in the early phases of this invasion the Russians have shown that they were completely incompetent in combined arms fighting when they failed so hard to coordinating their armored advances with enough artillery and air support to clear out the UA forces in front of them who so effectively used anti-tank weapons to devastate their armored forces. The Russians seemed to have learned their lesson by now, but its far too late when they've lost so many armored vehicles that they no longer can carry out large scale mobile offensives anymore and are now only able to pound enemy forces in front of them with overwhelming firepower before advancing a short distance at best. Also I'm surprised that for someone who's supposedly been in the military that you don't mention logistics much because that's the life blood of every army in history and that's where the Russians are weakest and it was a major reason why their early invasion was so costly.
1
@oknevals Dude have fun staying in your pro-Russian bubble and believing the Russians are doing awesome.
1
@Jamicaman516 The best info publicly available is showing us that its a pretty even 1 to 1 dead, wounded ration between both armies, which makes sense since really neither side has a huge advantage on the ground or in the air that would allow one side to inflict far greater losses on their opponent. Hope that helps a little. I find that difficult to believe at this point when Ukraine soldiers are getting better in quality with NATO training and equipment while new Russian troops are getting worse with poor to no training and then being sent to the frontlines to fight. If the reports are true that the Russians are using some units to try and prevent their own soldiers from running away under the threat of being shot then that's pretty damn bad that you would have to do such a thing. Unless the Russians start training up their new recruits to be at least half decent soldiers, then their casualty rates are only going to get worse while Ukrainian troop casualties should go lower as more and more of their troops get their NATO training and equipment. Also lets not forget that Ukrainian wounded are getting far, FAR better medical treatment than Russian wounded are. Many of them get evacuated to NATO countries for treatment while Russian soldiers get much worse treatment.
1
@qinby1182 We know that where Russia have stayed and defended they are holding like Kherson Need to revise this statement based on what happened in the last 24 hours in that area.
1
@badwolftx2139 Static defenses work great until they are broken or bypassed. They then become a liability. Kinda like what happened in Kharkiv and Kherson a few months back right?
1
@badwolftx2139 Also the Popasna part of the line in May. Once that line was cracked, the Zolote line then fell about 3 weeks later and then Russia just rolled through a largely undefended Sieverdonetsk and Lysychansk. Except that isn't what happened. Severodonetsk was still being fought over for a number of weeks even as the flanks were falling and it become a salient and many people were concerned that if the Ukrainians didn't fall back that they would eventually be encircled by the Russians. At one point I believe there was only about a 10km gap that the Ukrainians could escape through before they would be trapped and guess what? They were successful in retreating without becoming trapped and destroyed. I don't see any info so far that says that the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to retreat in the Bakhmut area when they needed to rather than being encircled by the Russians. Also this speaks to how many armored losses the Russians have suffered that they were so weak that they couldn't launch an armored attack from both flanks to close up the Severodonetsk pocket and surround the Ukrainians months ago. I think that will be the same here in that if the Russians had enough armored vehicles they would attack and push for an encirclement rather than slowly advancing with mostly infantry and allowing their enemy time to fall back.
1
@badwolftx2139 You are making my point. It's not to say it's without cost, but once static lines are breached, a collapse can happen relatively quickly (days or weeks, not many months or years) A collapse of the frontline depends on what's going against it. Right now the Russians are mostly attacking with infantry with relatively little armor support which means they're taking large casualties while only being able to push back the Ukrainians slowly. Even if they somehow break the frontline of the Ukrainians, they don't have the mobility to push through and exploit that success which means their gains will be modest at best while giving the Ukrainians time to recover and reform. After Popasna cracked, the next prepared defenses were the Solidar /Bakhmut line. These locations still had terrain and heavy industrial areas as key advantages. With the Bakhmut line broken, the next and final line before the Dnieper is the weakest. There are no natural obstacles. I would be surprised that even if the Russians end up taking Bakhmut that they'll be able to make further significant gains after unless they have more reserves to throw into the fight. Its pretty clear that the Russians as always don't care about losses so if they have more reserves they just might be crazy enough to do it. As we've seen from the Donbas offensive and now in Bakhmut, after losing large numbers of tanks and armored vehicles early in the war the Russians haven't been able to launch any large scale armored offensive since their retreat from the Kiev front. So I wouldn't be shocked to see the Russians try and continue to grind ahead while in the coming weeks they get pushed back by a well trained, well equipped and well led counter offensive by Ukraine. But I guess we'll have to wait and see if and when that might come. It seems like the more things change the more they stay the same where Russia has always relied on numbers in men and equipment to beat their opponents and Ukraine is turning more towards better quality in equipment and better trained men to fight them off.
1
@badwolftx2139 Now, take those same forces and put them behind a 2km wide river and it becomes an impenetrable static defense line. It certainly makes attacking more difficult, but almost nothing is impenetrable if you have well trained men with the right equipment and have the proper planning. Ukraine has no limiting terrain in the east. All they have are man-made trenches and tunnels in places that are easy to spot and shell. The Russians still have to attack and dig the Ukrainians out and unless they have a significant armor force to help breach Ukrainian lines and to exploit their breakthrough otherwise any progress they make is going to be modest at best. Again look to WWI where despite large portions of the frontline having little to no cover or natural obstacles, attacks required alot of men and artillery to breakthrough and make even a little bit of progress afterwards. That was the whole point of inventing tanks and eventually other armored vehicles so that you could avoid such stalemates and static warfare. The Russians clearly don't have enough in the way of armored vehicles to launch any sort of major attack with them otherwise they would've done so long ago rather than continue to slog along with infantry heavy attacks. Those first few months of the war really cost them much of their armored forces and now they're struggling to replace all those losses of which many were so avoidable if they weren't so dumb in using them. Its just crazy to me that the supposed second strongest army in the world is reduced to fighting with WWI style tactics in 2023. I can't ever imagine seeing the US army fighting a conventional war and losing so badly that they're reduced to throwing waves of men against the enemy to make any kind of progress while they're busy bringing M60 tanks back into service to replace all their Abrams losses. And yet here we are seeing Russia doing exactly that.
1
@badwolftx2139 There is zero evidence that Russia is sending waves of RF troops into battle. There is a lot of evidence that RF artillery pounds AFU forces for weeks before even thinking about advancing. I don't know where you go to for your info, but when I look on various subreddits there's PLENTY of video and photo evidence of this happening and there's numerous reports and stories as well. You can ignore all the evidence and say its propaganda, but ask yourself have you seen Russia launch any major attacks that involve alot of armored vehicles lately? I haven't. All these attacks in and around Bakhmut have been infantry heavy which means there's going to be alot of casualties especially when you're sending in the cannon fodder first to attack to take those casualties. The Russians as they've always have don't care about how many of their troops die or get wounded so this method is perfectly fine for them. People need to be mentally and emotionally prepared for the likelihood that RF forces will make significant advances in the coming days/weeks. If the Russians don't have the armored forces necessary to launch a major offensive then any gains they make will be similar to what you see now. There's no way you can fight a modern conventional war and expect large gains without having a decent armored force with the proper logistics to support them.
1
@badwolftx2139 I understand that you are going to be surprised and genuinely upset and scared when it becomes clear that Ukraine cannot "win" by its own definition. The best result Ukraine can hope for is retaining control over Odesa. If the AFU forces are too badly beaten in the east, there may not be enough left to defend any of Novorossiya. As I said before Ukraine has already 'won' by surviving and not completely surrendering after the first few weeks of the invasion. It didn't become another Belarus puppet state and that is a big victory already. Sure its questionable whether or not Ukraine will be able to regain all the territory it lost before the invasion and before 2014, but it will survive and become a partner of the west and hopefully apart of NATO soon because that's the only way Ukraine can be sure that it won't be attacked again like this when it will actually have western nations coming fully to their aid.
1
@badwolftx2139 The Ukrainians have won, but they haven't won completely. Are they out of danger of being completely taken over and becoming another Belarus like puppet state for Russia? Yes 100%. Have they kicked Russia completely out of their territory and regained everything they lost? Obviously not. Ukrainians need to keep fighting to take back as much as possible if not almost everything because once there's a ceasefire it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to regain that territory again. Its better to suffer and face potentially another year or several years of war NOW rather than have an uneasy peace that can likely turn into what happened the past 8 years in the Donbas with off and on fighting. The time to gain a decisive victory on the battlefield and then have negotiations or even better just kick the Russians out entirely. Unlikely I know, but the alternative isn't any good because Russia will still be a threat to their nation.
1
@badwolftx2139 Will you have the courage to come back and say you were wrong when any further Russian offensives don't result in large gains of territory, but costs significant casualties and equipment losses?
1
Pray all you like but sadly there won't be peace anytime soon with the way things are going.
1
@everaimless If the Russians had an 'orderly retreat' then why did they leave behind so much heavy equipment and munitions and other supplies for the Ukrainians? They couldn't even be bothered to blow them all up before leaving which wouldn't have taken very long.
1
The problem is that the Russians ARE taking damage both in men and equipment. Also any land they're losing isn't likely going to be easy for them to take back even with more troops. The Ukrainians are getting more of their troops trained and equipped by NATO everyday while the Russians are throwing in ever increasingly less trained and equipped troops. Don't know how the Russians are going to overcome this even if they're able to counterattack.
1
@mikeforester3963 There are plenty of places where western tanks can be used that doesn't have bridges or water and I'm pretty sure that unlike the Russians they'll make sure to check that the weather and territory is ideal before they deploy their tanks. I mean is it really that difficult to ask your weather guys if the ground is firm enough to support the weight of a tank in an area that you're interested in launching an offensive in? 😂😅😆😅🤣😂
1
@mikeforester3963 If even half of the RF-MoD numbers are true, UKR needs several tank regiments (= apprx. 100 pieces per rgt.) in order to replenish their lost Soviet gear with NATO-tier tech. Please don't entertain the notion that a NATO-tank is invincible -- they're not! Sure not having great numbers of western tanks and IFVs sucks for Ukraine right now, but they are getting a decent number of Bradleys and Marders to begin with and the few western tanks could be just the beginning of many more to come. In the meantime if you don't have many western tanks then to me it makes sense to spread them out to be more as spotter and support tanks. Namely for every platoon of 4 Russian tanks you give them a Challenger to stay back to spot and provide support fire with their superior optics and fire control systems. That's one way of using a scare resource more efficiently and reducing their chances of getting destroyed until Ukraine hopefully gets more western tanks to outfit whole units with. Also no one is saying that NATO tanks are invincible because nothing is indestructible, but they are far FAR superior to any Russian tanks on the battlefield these days and they certainly are more superior when it comes to protecting its crew and increasing their chances of survival. Western tanks and IFVs in enough numbers can make a difference on the battlefield, but who knows how big a difference that is until it actually happens especially without the kind of air support it received during the two Gulf wars. In a way this war in Ukraine has become a mini WWIII where we may soon see some of the best western equipment going up against Russian equipment as both sides had planned for in all those decades during the Cold War. It will be interesting to see how well western tanks and IFVs being used with western training and tactics will do on the battlefield and see if the western doctrine of fighting wasn't the better way all along. And on top of it, you'll need the maintenance crews for these vehicles as well as replacement parts because western tech tends to gum up pretty fast The Ukrainians have proven to be fast learners and able to adapt and solve problems as they arise. There's no reason why Ukrainian mechanics who are currently servicing Russian tanks can't quickly learn at least the basics of how to service western armored vehicles. And if there are really complicated issues that can't be solved quickly come up, there's no reason why these vehicles can't be shipped back to a NATO country so that they can be properly serviced in safety and with the proper people doing the job. Lithuania for example has already been servicing PZH 2000 SPHs for Ukraine for several months now and have pledged to do so for as long as the war goes on. No reason why other countries can't do the same for western armored vehicles if needed. At the end of the day the west has plenty of resources that it can draw upon to help Ukraine to win this war, it just depends on if they have the political will to use all those resources and it seems like slowly but surely they're shifting towards increasing their help to Ukraine. It would be nice if it were quicker, but slow progress is better than nothing.
1
@coltm4a186 Im an American and it would really be embarrassing if all the stuff my government gave to Ukraine was for nothing and ends up in Russian possession. I can only pray we don’t give them Abrams tanks if Ukraine loses this. Ukraine is fighting a near total war and as much as you don't want to lose equipment to the enemy eventually its probably going to happen so there's no use in worrying over that. Also its not like Abrams tanks haven't been lost in battle before or that they haven't probably already been in Russian hands to break down and study long ago. The Saudis have already lost some Abrams tanks in battle before so its not like someone couldn't have gathered some of those pieces and brought them back to Russia or China to study.
1
@mikeforester3963 No Bradley ever saw combat on Ukraine soil. All they experienced was the sandbox. Well Bradleys and Marders are about to go into combat in Europe in the coming months. So lets see how they do. The "West" (especially the EU) does NOT have the resources. Not by a mile. Only the US has got enough material rotting about in hangars that they can spare and issues profitable orders for new shit from Raytheon, Carlyle a.s.o. NATO as a whole collectively even minus the US does have plenty of resources and combat power to fight Russia if need be and they also have a fair bit to supply Ukraine if they wish. And even they (Biden) are curiously hesitant to sign off on an Abrams delivery. Why the hell do you think they are pressuring Germany to confirm the "Leo" deliveries? Because the Poles will get a nice deal on US gear. Looks like things have changed abit now that the US looks to have agreed to supply Ukraine with Abrams tanks after all and a number of European countries seem ready to give some Leo 2 tanks as well.
1
Well if the Ukrainians can keep the offensive going on two fronts for over a month, maybe their losses aren't nearly as high as the Russians and their supporters hope them to be?
1
@instructionalvideos2309 Russians are having even better success demilitarizing themselves these days. 🤣😂😅🤣🤣😂
1
@Leonardo Gonçalves I’ve said this months ago, Russia should have formally declared war on Ukraine and declare full mobilization of its forces. If Putin could've fully mobilized with relative little political and economic consequences, wouldn't he have done so long before he launched the invasion? Seems like he didn't want to and continues to not want to because of the cost of doing so and what the narrative might be at home if Russians saw a ton of their young men being called up to fight in a supposed 'special operation'. This war of attrition will only drag this war to no end and it is clear from day one that Russia and Ukraine cannot coexist with a shared border anymore. Wait what happened? We went from Russia will win ezclap to they've taken a few setbacks but Russian victory is still not in doubt to now saying they need much more forces to win in Ukraine? Also Ukraine can co-exist fine with its neighbors, its just Russia being a schoolyard bully who doesn't want to live in peace with everyone else and now when people are standing up to the bully they're getting exposed for being not nearly as strong and powerful as they want everyone to believe they are.
1
No NATO membership means if you're a neighbor of Russia you'll always be in danger from them unless you're as powerful or more so than they are like China is.
1
@candykane4271 According to all pro-Russian sources the Ukrainians are just days if not a few weeks away from total collapse! 😂🤣😅😅😅
1