I made a second post continuing the discussion that touches on these points, however it was automatically blocked for moderator approval. I broke up the text into two parts hoping it would improve readability and make people more likely to read it, I did not expect this.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Black Shark
Junior Member
Gift?
You believe people around the world give a flying turd about you? You are just the meat for the grinder and you have the bold position of siting at home probably in Poland and cheering for more meat for the grinder.
That is a loan with huge interest in blood and money in total expense of what before 2014 was known as the Ukraine.
Sit in Poland and raise the UPA flag, you will be welcomed there, warmly.
With 80% actually going to weapons manufacturers to replenish NATO stocks...in 30 years and only 20% going to Ukraine in the way of increasingly outdated weapons as they starting sending 105mm howitzers and TOWs.
On the way to increasing ISISfication of the UAF.
Japan. Guess Khalkin-Gol wasn't enough.
Yes, if you look at the Russian Donbass offensive, they have shown very good decision making. Very flexible in their approach, always probe for weak points and attack the weak points for breakthrough. Attack well fortified areas when the troops in that area are drawn down(unexpected). Attacking from multiple fronts to weaken the defense of the Ukrainians at any given front. You get a sense that a group of very capable generals carefully look through all the possibilities and pick out the winning approach. It is hard to imagine that they don't also do the same strategically to evaluate different approaches and pick the winning one. Many here can point to this failing or that, but it is hard to imagine the Russian generals don't already know what we armchair generals think we know and somehow we can do better. This is especially true since we don't have any information on the situation with the battlefield.
This is the main point. We can argue about Russia's deficiencies in all aspects but lack of manpower is the main thing holding Russia back.
Never forget that this issue has been caused by politicians and not by the military itself. So, yes, we can and we should dank Russia's garbage (for a military "superpower") military but we should keep in mind that Putin is the real culprit here. The buck stops on him and no-one else
No
If Russian forces have good number of UAVs for both sensors and attack, and good number of guided munitions, the troop numbers wouldn't matter as much. The Ukrainian supplies would have been cut and every bunker, pillbox, trenches outside of cities bombed.
I get what you are saying and I don't disagree with you (same reason why I dont view the "50000 shells per day" claim as that much of a positive for showing Russia's military strength).
However Ukraine is a huge country, even with all the high tech on the world, best ISR platforms, you still need warm bodies on the ground. And given how big the front is, you can never have too many boots on the ground.
So Russia's sins here are two-fold.
1st they fight a non-high-tech old-style war
2nd even with old style war they refuse to commit manpower lol
So Russia basically wants to have its cake and eat it too. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. If Russia wanted low manpower, it should had gone (planned years ago..) with a high-tech military.
Whats happening now is that Russia is getting the worst of both worlds and eventually had to settle down with mass artillery fires which transforms this war to an attritional war and massively slows it down, which paradoxically enough, suits Russia fine because it prolongs the war until Winter when Russia is going to have the biggest leverage against Europe.
All in all, Russia has been proven to be a paper tiger. Can't wait for their 134th marketing/propaganda video on "How these 5 secret Russian superweapons can beat America". And lets not forget Russia getting "1st place" on their Tank Biathlon games lol
Last edited:
Another option for the Russians would be to try to launch a massive bombing attack with all their might. However, in an environment with strong air defense, this can turn out to be too costly in terms of lives and materials and ultimately not have the expected result, something like the US bloody fiasco of .
Last edited:
6-month anniversary of the SMO, and Donestk's People's Republic has not been liberated yet.... even though it was one of the original objectives of the SMO?
At this rate, I don't think Russia is going to go for Odessa, Kharkiv, or Kiev. It's probably going to declare victory after DPR is liberated, then annex the currently occupied territories. The correct strategy would be regime change at all cost, even mass mobilization.
At this rate, I don't think Russia is going to go for Odessa, Kharkiv, or Kiev. It's probably going to declare victory after DPR is liberated, then annex the currently occupied territories. The correct strategy would be regime change at all cost, even mass mobilization.
If weapon shipments to Ukraine start to dry up as the US and UK gear for war against China, how likely is the continued existance of Zelensky's government even if Russia doesn't take any more land by that point?.
I mean, if the russians don't take the guy out, one of the many warlord oligarchs with their own army brigades will. So, either way, Ukraine is done as we knew it.
I mean, if the russians don't take the guy out, one of the many warlord oligarchs with their own army brigades will. So, either way, Ukraine is done as we knew it.