In before a military policy expert appears to tell you about the terrain, probably imagining a bunch of sand dunes in Iraq, was a mitigating factor therefore that's incomparable.
US had like a 20-something odd day head start with launching cruise missiles to soften up all targets as well.
Just a few pages back I put the stats up and someone threw the baby out with the bathwater because there's obvious variations in geography, but couldn't even begin to explain how much of a factor that did or didn't play.
How so? It is clear Russia is not even able to keep order among their troops. If you look at just how much machinery they wasted and how many troops died, it is hard to claim Russia's military is capable for that kind of mission.
Its not like Russia used young recruits deliberately @xi0 . Two of their generals already died. The idea of this being a strategy , using cannon fodder, does not really seem plausible. They have lots and lots of planes and helicopters being destroyed, that is insanely costly. Why would they do that if they could do it in another way?
Russia used the best troops for the initial attack it could muster up. It is true that they wanted to minimize civilan losses initially, but that can hardly excuse their heavy losses.
The united states lost less than 200 people for the initial iraq invasion. It is very clear that their invasion was a capable and planned attack. If you cannot take a country in 2 days, why do you try and lose 10k men or more and lots of planes, tanks and helicopters?
Again, I would not say that if russia took some time but lost like 100 dudes. But they are clearly just being demolished. If Russia did not have missile, this would be over.
It's like saying the Zerg sent 1/20 of their Zerg reserves, did a Zerg rush, suffered LESS losses than a typical Zerg rush, still surrounded the enemy HQ's (while overrunning smaller outposts), to the point that the Terran now wants to talk about ceding Crimea and delisting from NATO candidacy, and has a shit-ton of Ultralisks and Hydralisks on standby at any given time.
This is not to say they have the biggest military, or even the most capable. It's just to point out that their efforts in Ukraine are not representative of what Russia is capable of utilizing in an actual, *total war* scenario.
This of course ignores trump cards like nukes and ACC-killer hyper-missiles.
He did, but I still think his military was embarrassed strategically. What he did in the initial days didn't work. Lulling Ukraine into a false sense of security doesn't seem to be what happened either. So I'm still left wondering what the aim was really.
It's like saying the Zerg sent 1/20 of their Zerg reserves, did a Zerg rush, suffered LESS losses than a typical Zerg rush, still surrounded the enemy HQ's (while overrunning smaller outposts), to the point that the Terran now wants to talk about ceding Crimea and delisting from NATO candidacy, and has a shit-ton of Ultralisks and Hydralisks on standby at any given time.
This is not to say they have the biggest military, or even the most capable. It's just to point out that their efforts in Ukraine are not representative of what Russia is capable of utilizing in an actual, *total war* scenario.
This of course ignores trump cards like nukes and ACC-killer hyper-missiles.
No, it is like saying that it is embarassing to suffer losses that heavy with a superior army. Because it is. Russians are not zergs, russians are wasting money they do not have here.
That is not something russia would or could ever accept. The sanctions will end when they pull out of Ukraine, they cannot end before that, but it would also have little sense to demand more than that.
No, it is like saying that it is embarassing to suffer losses that heavy with a superior army. Because it is. Russians are not zergs, russians are wasting money they do not have here.
I don't think I am in the minority to claim that Russia has embarassed themselves by losing the vehicles, planes and helicopters they already lost and the troops they already lost.
They already lost two generals. That is not something you do in a war that you are supposed to win quickly.
He did, but I still think his military was embarrassed strategically. What he did in the initial days didn't work. Lulling Ukraine into a false sense of security doesn't seem to be what happened either. So I'm still left wondering what the aim was really.
Shutting down big cities, for however long it seems. Until done. Fighting entrenched paramilitary troops that may or may not be embedded with civilians makes things a lot 'dirtier' of a war.
I don't think I am in the minority to claim that Russia has embarassed themselves by losing the vehicles, planes and helicopters they already lost and the troops they already lost.
They already lost two generals. That is not something you do in a war that you are supposed to win quickly.
That hardly matters. They came to take that country by storm with minimal losses and minimal civilian murders. They did not succeed with that and lost an insane amount of troops and expensive machinery and they also lost two generals.
That is embarassing, no matter how you put it. Before, everybody thought they take ukraine in 2 days and they thought that too. And now it can clearly be seen that Russia is incapable of that, short of just pulverizing it with bombs from far away.
Their forces are simply doing badly and their losses are unsustainable on the long term, leave alone too expensive with the sanctions.
They can probably keep being there until june or so and take kyiv at some point, but they just cannot occupy it if ukraine keeps pushing them away.
Shutting down big cities, for however long it seems. Until done. Fighting entrenched paramilitary troops that may or may not be embedded with civilians makes things a lot 'dirtier' of a war.
Sleboda works for RT and other pro-Kremlin outlets, so not sure I need to sit through an hour of that. Plus, the video I linked wasn't really pro either side, was just an analysis of open-sources. Not sure what's being raised here.
Sleboda works for RT and other pro-Kremlin outlets, so not sure I need to sit through an hour of that. Plus, the video I linked wasn't really pro either side, was just an analysis of open-sources. Not sure what's being raised here.
It's just a dubious source IMO. I'm not saying he's spouting off falsities every other sentence, but the issue is he's a military analyst based in Moscow, so I wouldn't expect the kind of candor that I'm really looking for.
But for summarization's sake, what exactly is he saying in the video that serves as a counterpoint to Task & Purpose's video?
That hardly matters. They came to take that country by storm with minimal losses and minimal civilian murders. They did not succeed with that and lost an insane amount of troops and expensive machinery and they also lost two generals.
That is embarassing, no matter how you put it. Before, everybody thought they take ukraine in 2 days and they thought that too. And now it can clearly be seen that Russia is incapable of that, short of just pulverizing it with bombs from far away.
Their forces are simply doing badly and their losses are unsustainable on the long term, leave alone too expensive with the sanctions.
They can probably keep being there until june or so and take kyiv at some point, but they just cannot occupy it if ukraine keeps pushing them away.
There is not a single map showing Russian forces being 'pushed away' so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It's completely relevant if an invading force, which is obviously in the position of risk considering home turf and defensive positions should be ideal, is able to completely overwhelm enemy forces with the defensive force taking much heaving losses. How much 'expensive machinery' should be lost in such an exchange? This isn't mortal kombat, there is no 'flawless victory' here. Why not try to put a dollar value on how much each has lost, then that shows who is 'winning' in the exchange at least as it were.
"A top official had said on Monday that Putin has now committed nearly all the forces he had amassed on the borders of Ukraine in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion. There has been “no appreciable difference” on that front since, according to the defense official who spoke on Tuesday, who noted that Putin “still has nearly 95% of the combat power he started with.”
“We are not seeing indications that he is pulling from elsewhere in the country to add to that combat power,” the official added. “That combat power is largely intact, quite frankly.”"
Does Ukraine still have 95% of what it started with? Why is Zelenskyy talking about giving up on both Crimea and NATO now if they are kicking so much ass?
It's just a dubious source IMO. I'm not saying he's spouting off falsities every other sentence, but the issue is he's a military analyst based in Moscow, so I wouldn't expect the kind of candor that I'm really looking for.
But for summarization's sake, what exactly is he saying in the video that serves as a counterpoint to Task & Purpose's video?
He gets into 'did Russia make a mistake' - both yes and no. How Putin miscalculated a bit on how he would be perceived, but the information war takes its toll, the role of civilians, and how the Azov and others have utilized their presence meaning the type of warfare has changed. It's now entrenched in metro areas, a lot dirtier, which of course has terrible optics for all the obvious reasons both real and inflated.
It's not a 'counterpoint' per se, but just a holistic take on the war in total. Not so much about the caravan.
There is not a single map showing Russian forces being 'pushed away' so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It's completely relevant if an invading force, which is obviously in the position of risk considering home turf and defensive positions should be ideal, is able to completely overwhelm enemy forces with the defensive force taking much heaving losses. How much 'expensive machinery' should be lost in such an exchange? This isn't mortal kombat, there is no 'flawless victory' here. Why not try to put a dollar value on how much each has lost, then that shows who is 'winning' in the exchange at least as it were.
I am telling you that russians are dying and keep dying, that this war is very costly for russia, that russia does not have the resources to sustain it longer than june or so and that even after the ukrainian military is beaten, resistance will keep going.
Russia cannot keep being there, they will have to leave.
There should not be this much machinery and troops lost, period. That is just embarassing. It does not matter how mucht he ukrainians lost, it matters how much russia lost and what they lost is a disgrace for their military.
"A top official had said on Monday that Putin has now committed nearly all the forces he had amassed on the borders of Ukraine in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion. There has been “no appreciable difference” on that front since, according to the defense official who spoke on Tuesday, who noted that Putin “still has nearly 95% of the combat power he started with.”
“We are not seeing indications that he is pulling from elsewhere in the country to add to that combat power,” the official added. “That combat power is largely intact, quite frankly.”"
Does Ukraine still have 95% of what it started with? Why is Zelenskyy talking about giving up on both Crimea and NATO now if they are kicking so much ass?
Losing 5% (and we are talking closer to ten by now) is completely unacceptable in that kind of invasion and does not even take into account how much expensive planes and helicopters were lost.
The US sent 170k guys to Iraq and 200 died in the invasion. They lost 0.12% of their force and basically no expensive toys. Russia losing about 10% or so is off the charts pathetic.
I am telling you that russians are dying and keep dying, that this war is very costly for russia, that russia does not have the resources to sustain it longer than june or so and that even after the ukrainian military is beaten, resistance will keep going.
Russia cannot keep being there, they will have to leave.
There should not be this much machinery and troops lost, period. That is just embarassing. It does not matter how mucht he ukrainians lost, it matters how much russia lost and what they lost is a disgrace for their military.
Losing 5% (and we are talking closer to ten by now) is completely unacceptable in that kind of invasion and does not even take into account how much expensive planes and helicopters were lost.
The US sent 170k guys to Iraq and 200 died in the invasion. They lost 0.12% of their force and basically no expensive toys. Russia losing about 10% or so is off the charts pathetic.
Which gets into you again insisting that Russia sent its best. It's not even enough of a thought that Russia feels the need to scrape up reinforcements, but you arbitrarily double their losses... just cause? That report was from Tuesday lol (i.e., within the last 24hrs). Why should it be "more like 10%"? Based on what exactly, your word? Russian losses doubled in a 12-hour shift?
The above link cites *US sources* (also cited in the wiki) claiming they (Z) might have lost closer to 2000 (since the beginning of the invasion). That's more along the lines of 1% - not 10.
And, again, the US sent its best - we did not withhold. Air support was insane. Russia COULD have leveled cities with their large volume of ballistics, which represent the focus of their military. They went in overnight as opposed to weeks of cruise missiles and heavy presence in the skies.
Isn't it asinine to suggest they shouldn't take any losses when invading a country of 44 million?
Again, why is Zelenskyy changing his tune?
More like Russia decided the dregs would be sufficient, and so far they are. With losses within tolerances. Apparently at least.
