arti strikes towards Seversk
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
It is on Ukraine territory, forward observers (spies), public data satellites etc. Since its a handful of attacks at best, its hard to believe Ukraine wouldn't have knowledge of at least 10 warehouses used by Russia over the course of 5 whole months.
So what's stopping NATO from doing exactly that and finally dealing with this 'threat' that is Russia ?
Interesting interview on ABC news with an American volunteer who returned from the front. His points:
- Russians are hunting them 24/7 with indirect fire and drones.
- He only survived because the advancing Russians were "timid" and didn't obliterate them.
- The condition on the frontline is "grim".
NATO is defensive alliance (if a NATO country starts with aggression of another country it's not a problem for any other one). The second reason is that no one wants to attack Russia. Third reason is that Ukraine is doing just fine destroying Russian forces and equipment on it's own.
What are you even talking about? Russia has degraded Ukraines military capability in the Donbass effectively. Things are so bad Ukraine has to send territorial defense forces and conscripts with two weeks of training. Ukrainian forces are complaining that Russia fires so much artillery, aerial munitions it destroys their equipment and morale. They are sending men armed with machine guns,AKs,rpgs into a frontline that’s an artillery battle. 500 men are killed and 1,500 are wounded daily. And it shows on the battlefield. The Russians are advancing while the Ukrainian forces are losing ground. I notice you never show up in this thread when Ukraine loses a major city or town.
And of course Ukraine is fighting well. This isn’t Iraq. Ukraine had a large military, trained by the west for 8 years. However they are losing in the Donbass. It’s not matter if they will lose just when.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Kind of a silly dig saying the Russians are ‘timid’ when being curbstomped by them.
I think he is comparing the Russian approach to the hyper-aggressive American approach in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is silly. Because if the Iraqis and Afghanis had even a fraction of the ATGM and artillery capabilities as the Ukrainians, the Americans would have also fought ‘timidly’.
Currently, the Russians are happy to just shell the Ukrainians from afar and relative safety while all the NATO supplied ATGMs gets obliterated by artillery or abandoned when the Ukrainians retreat from their lines and gets hit with artillery all the way to the next line.
The Russians might not kill as many Ukrainian soldiers as they might with a more aggressive style, but they are saving a lot their own casualties as well. The cost is time, which the Russians have plenty of to spare.
So when see a video of 4 or so air launched cruise missiles hitting one target does that mean they launched about 10 or were those ones from a lucky batch?
Ukraine military isn't even good because it was trained by the west, its good because it inherited maybe 30% of the ground military might of the Soviet Union, which at its peak was estimated could roll through west Europe unless nukes were used.
For example, Ukraine kept the complete industrial chain for T-80 tanks, and inherited insane amounts of stockpile from the USSR.
If anything the 2014 coup and introduction of nazis into the military have temporarily created more bodies but reduced the potential military strength by wrecking their economy.
Should they have built up along socialist lines instead, open up the country without disfavoring the workers, put initiatives to shift military tech bureaus into civilian sectors, it's likely that they would have nukes, have a comparable gdp per capita to China if not higher, functioning navy with at least 1 CV and military professionalism rivalling the PLA/old USSR.
Ukraine is an interesting country to me because it shares many parallels with China, but in the end handled things as badly as possible.
Source?