|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
Idk who to reply to directly, but the most common sentiment I see from the replies is "why should we trust MacGregor?"
So I'll address that.
You don't have to trust him at all. I do because I know in the current climate of the US military, people that go against the grain do not become generals. And from my POV, the entire military establishment is corrupt, to the core. So when Douglas says X, Y, or Z, it has my attention.
You have roundly ignored the fact that his "going against the grain" comes down to being completely wrong in all his predictions regarding the war. When choosing a weather forecast, do you also go for one that is consistently wrong?
Also, did you pay attention before he started to shill for Russia? Are you sure he didn't just tow the line when he was in active duty?
|
On August 23 2023 15:23 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
Idk who to reply to directly, but the most common sentiment I see from the replies is "why should we trust MacGregor?"
So I'll address that.
You don't have to trust him at all. I do because I know in the current climate of the US military, people that go against the grain do not become generals. And from my POV, the entire military establishment is corrupt, to the core. So when Douglas says X, Y, or Z, it has my attention. You have roundly ignored the fact that his "going against the grain" comes down to being completely wrong in all his predictions regarding the war. When choosing a weather forecast, do you also go for one that is consistently wrong? Also, did you pay attention before he started to shill for Russia? Are you sure he didn't just tow the line when he was in active duty?
And who exactly was right about any predictions? The guys saying Russia had enough ammunition for two more weeks in April 2022? Please. These people that make money from comentating on the war just throw as much shit as they can at the wall and one thing out of 50 sticks. Its much more lucrative to shill for Ukraine in any case, you are also under much less scrutiny and your target audiance will gulp down anything you say no matter how off the wall bat shit insane it is.
Though because there are so many shills to chose from these commentators have to come up with more and more crazy predictions and theories to stand out. Even that Kings and Generals channel seeing they can make much more money doing propaganda quasi-documentaries than talking about history.
|
On August 23 2023 16:15 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 15:23 maybenexttime wrote:On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
Idk who to reply to directly, but the most common sentiment I see from the replies is "why should we trust MacGregor?"
So I'll address that.
You don't have to trust him at all. I do because I know in the current climate of the US military, people that go against the grain do not become generals. And from my POV, the entire military establishment is corrupt, to the core. So when Douglas says X, Y, or Z, it has my attention. You have roundly ignored the fact that his "going against the grain" comes down to being completely wrong in all his predictions regarding the war. When choosing a weather forecast, do you also go for one that is consistently wrong? Also, did you pay attention before he started to shill for Russia? Are you sure he didn't just tow the line when he was in active duty? And who exactly was right about any predictions? The guys saying Russia had enough ammunition for two more weeks in April 2022? Please. These people that make money from comentating on the war just throw as much shit as they can at the wall and one thing out of 50 sticks. Its much more lucrative to shill for Ukraine in any case, you are also under much less scrutiny and your target audiance will gulp down anything you say no matter how off the wall bat shit insane it is. Though because there are so many shills to chose from these commentators have to come up with more and more crazy predictions and theories to stand out. Even that Kings and Generals channel seeing they can make much more money doing propaganda quasi-documentaries than talking about history.
What are you talking about?
3 days war or 500 days war, who was right?
|
On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference.
Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously.
|
On August 23 2023 16:18 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 16:15 zeo wrote:On August 23 2023 15:23 maybenexttime wrote:On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
Idk who to reply to directly, but the most common sentiment I see from the replies is "why should we trust MacGregor?"
So I'll address that.
You don't have to trust him at all. I do because I know in the current climate of the US military, people that go against the grain do not become generals. And from my POV, the entire military establishment is corrupt, to the core. So when Douglas says X, Y, or Z, it has my attention. You have roundly ignored the fact that his "going against the grain" comes down to being completely wrong in all his predictions regarding the war. When choosing a weather forecast, do you also go for one that is consistently wrong? Also, did you pay attention before he started to shill for Russia? Are you sure he didn't just tow the line when he was in active duty? And who exactly was right about any predictions? The guys saying Russia had enough ammunition for two more weeks in April 2022? Please. These people that make money from comentating on the war just throw as much shit as they can at the wall and one thing out of 50 sticks. Its much more lucrative to shill for Ukraine in any case, you are also under much less scrutiny and your target audiance will gulp down anything you say no matter how off the wall bat shit insane it is. Though because there are so many shills to chose from these commentators have to come up with more and more crazy predictions and theories to stand out. Even that Kings and Generals channel seeing they can make much more money doing propaganda quasi-documentaries than talking about history. What are you talking about? 3 days war or 500 days war, who was right?
The three days to Kiev narrative was started by the American Gen. Milley before Feb 24th. You can read an article about it here:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources
It seems this was misquoted later as somehow being Putins statement or widely circulated in English media as his plan. This is low level propaganda thats been repeated so many times people stopped thinking about it. Cheap clicks for an audiance that wants a quick dose of 'haha Putin didnt get what he wanted'. If you search online maybe you can find a Russian pundunt on their television in hour 6 of an 8 hour rant mention Kiev falling in two days. But you can barely call that widespread among the pundantry.
Who said that it would all last 500 days in the beginning? I cant find anything?
Edit: the point here isnt about what Putins plans were, who knows. We are talking about what was being commentated then. Please direct us to someone that was right about everything from the start
|
On August 23 2023 16:49 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference. Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously.
Jesus Christ, is this what they seriously teach you in schools these days? That Germany collapsed after the US finally put a third front on the map? By the time Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were already pushing into Hungary and Poland. The war was effectively over at that point; opening of the Western front was no more consequential to the war in Europe than the Soviet steamroll of the Kwantung army was to the war in the Pacific theater.
Because this is a post Russian empire collapse civil war between two successor states, both crippled by corruption, alcoholism, deindustrialization, bad demographics, and the economic collapse of the end of the USSR. Ukraine is one of the few peer adversaries Russia could actually find in the world. This would not be called a peer conflict if a real country was involved, they’re peers of each other, not of the west or China.
When I shit on the Russian Empire’s military history that applies to both sides here. They’re both former Russian Empire. The fact that it’s a stalemate right now doesn’t imply that a mighty Russian military is successfully resisting the military superpower that is Ukraine, it implies that both of them have gotten stuck in the same swamp.
I ask you again, what are these 'real countries' you speak of? The ones that 'totally could build up an army if they wanted to' do not count, because they only exist in your delusions. There are very few nations in the world that are actually capable of carrying out extended large scale campaigns like the one ongoing in Ukraine, none of them at a moment's notice. The only country in Europe that might have the will to produce and support sufficient amount of hardware and manpower for something of this scale is Turkey, nobody in the West wants to build and maintain thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery and miscellaneous pieces of gear, not to mention the millions of shells and boots on the ground needed for it. This is not a criticism of European nations, it's a statement of fact. Nobody wants to fight wars like this any more, and nobody wants to pay for wars like this, not in money and most certainly not in lives. Literally all of NATO combined is still unable to fulfill Ukraine's ammunition needs 500 days into the war, and you keep droning on about individual member states totes being able to crush those alcoholic slavs? Just ridiculous.
|
We had a similar discussion about whether or not Russia could successfully invade Finland now or back in early 2022. It's pretty clear to anyone with military understanding that they wouldn't be able to put much of a dent into the country. Finland can mobilize practically its entire workforce, and Russia didn't and still doesn't have what it takes to defeat a country that is actually prepared for an invasion. This is what Ukrainians are currently proving. Russia is a paper tiger. It can invade small, unprepared countries, and that's it. It's a shell of its former self.
|
United States43460 Posts
On August 23 2023 17:12 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 16:49 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference. Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously. Jesus Christ, is this what they seriously teach you in schools these days? That Germany collapsed after the US finally put a third front on the map? By the time Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were already pushing into Hungary and Poland. The war was effectively over at that point; opening of the Western front was no more consequential to the war in Europe than the Soviet steamroll of the Kwantung army was to the war in the Pacific theater. Show nested quote +Because this is a post Russian empire collapse civil war between two successor states, both crippled by corruption, alcoholism, deindustrialization, bad demographics, and the economic collapse of the end of the USSR. Ukraine is one of the few peer adversaries Russia could actually find in the world. This would not be called a peer conflict if a real country was involved, they’re peers of each other, not of the west or China.
When I shit on the Russian Empire’s military history that applies to both sides here. They’re both former Russian Empire. The fact that it’s a stalemate right now doesn’t imply that a mighty Russian military is successfully resisting the military superpower that is Ukraine, it implies that both of them have gotten stuck in the same swamp. I ask you again, what are these 'real countries' you speak of? The ones that 'totally could build up an army if they wanted to' do not count, because they only exist in your delusions. There are very few nations in the world that are actually capable of carrying out extended large scale campaigns like the one ongoing in Ukraine, none of them at a moment's notice. The only country in Europe that might have the will to produce and support sufficient amount of hardware and manpower for something of this scale is Turkey, nobody in the West wants to build and maintain thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery and miscellaneous pieces of gear, not to mention the millions of shells and boots on the ground needed for it. This is not a criticism of European nations, it's a statement of fact. Nobody wants to fight wars like this any more, and nobody wants to pay for wars like this, not in money and most certainly not in lives. Literally all of NATO combined is still unable to fulfill Ukraine's ammunition needs 500 days into the war, and you keep droning on about individual member states totes being able to crush those alcoholic slavs? Just ridiculous.
You have yet to show even a basic understanding of my point and yet you keep responding only to miss it in the exact same way.
It is entirely reasonable to assume that if a given western nation such as France was given 8 years to prepare for a large European artillery war it would be prepared. It is entirely unreasonable to argue that because they’re not presently prepared they could not possibly prepare if they had to.
The fact that NATO powers aren’t prepared to invade Ukraine today is not proof that NATO could do no better than Russia had NATO started their preparations 9 years ago. This is so utterly obvious I can’t understand any possible motivation you might have for your obtuse denials of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 23 2023 17:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 17:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 23 2023 16:49 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference. Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously. Jesus Christ, is this what they seriously teach you in schools these days? That Germany collapsed after the US finally put a third front on the map? By the time Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were already pushing into Hungary and Poland. The war was effectively over at that point; opening of the Western front was no more consequential to the war in Europe than the Soviet steamroll of the Kwantung army was to the war in the Pacific theater. Because this is a post Russian empire collapse civil war between two successor states, both crippled by corruption, alcoholism, deindustrialization, bad demographics, and the economic collapse of the end of the USSR. Ukraine is one of the few peer adversaries Russia could actually find in the world. This would not be called a peer conflict if a real country was involved, they’re peers of each other, not of the west or China.
When I shit on the Russian Empire’s military history that applies to both sides here. They’re both former Russian Empire. The fact that it’s a stalemate right now doesn’t imply that a mighty Russian military is successfully resisting the military superpower that is Ukraine, it implies that both of them have gotten stuck in the same swamp. I ask you again, what are these 'real countries' you speak of? The ones that 'totally could build up an army if they wanted to' do not count, because they only exist in your delusions. There are very few nations in the world that are actually capable of carrying out extended large scale campaigns like the one ongoing in Ukraine, none of them at a moment's notice. The only country in Europe that might have the will to produce and support sufficient amount of hardware and manpower for something of this scale is Turkey, nobody in the West wants to build and maintain thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery and miscellaneous pieces of gear, not to mention the millions of shells and boots on the ground needed for it. This is not a criticism of European nations, it's a statement of fact. Nobody wants to fight wars like this any more, and nobody wants to pay for wars like this, not in money and most certainly not in lives. Literally all of NATO combined is still unable to fulfill Ukraine's ammunition needs 500 days into the war, and you keep droning on about individual member states totes being able to crush those alcoholic slavs? Just ridiculous. You have yet to show even a basic understanding of my point and yet you keep responding only to miss it in the exact same way. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if a given western nation such as France was given 8 years to prepare for a large European artillery war it would be prepared. It is entirely unreasonable to argue that because they’re not presently prepared they could not possibly prepare if they had to. The fact that NATO powers aren’t prepared to invade Ukraine today is not proof that NATO could do no better than Russia had NATO started their preparations 9 years ago. This is so utterly obvious I can’t understand any possible motivation you might have for your obtuse denials of reality.
It's honestly so weird how you think that 'reality' and 'what could hypothetically happen in an entirely made up scenario' are one and the same.
|
On August 23 2023 17:09 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 16:18 0x64 wrote:On August 23 2023 16:15 zeo wrote:On August 23 2023 15:23 maybenexttime wrote:On August 23 2023 08:09 captainwaffles wrote:
Idk who to reply to directly, but the most common sentiment I see from the replies is "why should we trust MacGregor?"
So I'll address that.
You don't have to trust him at all. I do because I know in the current climate of the US military, people that go against the grain do not become generals. And from my POV, the entire military establishment is corrupt, to the core. So when Douglas says X, Y, or Z, it has my attention. You have roundly ignored the fact that his "going against the grain" comes down to being completely wrong in all his predictions regarding the war. When choosing a weather forecast, do you also go for one that is consistently wrong? Also, did you pay attention before he started to shill for Russia? Are you sure he didn't just tow the line when he was in active duty? And who exactly was right about any predictions? The guys saying Russia had enough ammunition for two more weeks in April 2022? Please. These people that make money from comentating on the war just throw as much shit as they can at the wall and one thing out of 50 sticks. Its much more lucrative to shill for Ukraine in any case, you are also under much less scrutiny and your target audiance will gulp down anything you say no matter how off the wall bat shit insane it is. Though because there are so many shills to chose from these commentators have to come up with more and more crazy predictions and theories to stand out. Even that Kings and Generals channel seeing they can make much more money doing propaganda quasi-documentaries than talking about history. What are you talking about? 3 days war or 500 days war, who was right? The three days to Kiev narrative was started by the American Gen. Milley before Feb 24th. You can read an article about it here: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sourcesIt seems this was misquoted later as somehow being Putins statement or widely circulated in English media as his plan. This is low level propaganda thats been repeated so many times people stopped thinking about it. Cheap clicks for an audiance that wants a quick dose of 'haha Putin didnt get what he wanted'. If you search online maybe you can find a Russian pundunt on their television in hour 6 of an 8 hour rant mention Kiev falling in two days. But you can barely call that widespread among the pundantry. Who said that it would all last 500 days in the beginning? I cant find anything? Edit: the point here isnt about what Putins plans were, who knows. We are talking about what was being commentated then. Please direct us to someone that was right about everything from the start
Real military combat simulation specialists predicted a years long conflict if Kiev doesn't fall with a front line following the Dniepro river.
The three days narrative was about the actions taken by the armed force, it doesn't mean literally 3 days, it means a rush of massive amount of units to scare Ukranians to surrender while minimizing losses. A plan that made perfect sense but it failed.
You don't need a quote from Putin for every actions, if it happened, it happened.
Where western media gets it wrong, it is when they fail to notice how 90% of the material sent toward kiev was a decoy to create panic. While everyone was laughing at the poorly prepared material, Russia managed to capture a huge part of the country before they got blocked by natural obstacles.
Then shit started to turn around when Russia wanted to cross dniepro. After that, logistic costs of further progress became the doom of the Russian army.
Everything culminating in the most humiliating battle in modern history in Bahmut. This was clearly a tipping point for the war. You could see that Russian army had adapted and had to start using its artillery in a smarter way.
Logistic lines started to be more limited and more targeted. They learned the hard way not to store huge piles of ammunition. Not to gather soldiers in large groups for long periods of time.
A lot of these easy costly mistake of Russia are less and less present. We still see the occasional Ukranian strike on military airfields.
So while a counter-offensive is clearly not happening and why would it? I think the counter-offensive speech is the most successful western propaganda.
In a real battle situation, you want to keep the enemy stretched to the maximum. If Ukraine manage to capture the whole territory back, it will not a valuable victory, just the beginning of a new nightmare.
Now, Russia needs to balance between the long exposure of the troops to the conflict, the way they get them food and ammunition far beyond their boundary. Even fresh water can easily become an issue with an overextended frontline.
Why we see Russia being really screwed, is due the falling cost of war for Ukraine vs Rising cost of war for Russia.
We can consider Ukraine having lost 90% of what they can lose. While Russia keeps losing in a more linear manner (But they have moved to defensive position).
The best way to lose for Ukraine would be through offensive.
The most comical way for Ukraine to win would be to march to Moscow, but this is fantasy. But it would make such a good comedy. A war that starts with a 3 days march to Kiev ending in a three day march to Moscow. That won't happen because NATO is protecting Russia. You could also see NATO protecting Putin when Prighozin started his march to Moscow... This really made everyone panic :D. "Wagner with nukes" was not something that was in any scenario, but like we all know, this was just a little misunderstanding.
|
On August 23 2023 17:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 17:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 23 2023 16:49 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference. Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously. Jesus Christ, is this what they seriously teach you in schools these days? That Germany collapsed after the US finally put a third front on the map? By the time Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were already pushing into Hungary and Poland. The war was effectively over at that point; opening of the Western front was no more consequential to the war in Europe than the Soviet steamroll of the Kwantung army was to the war in the Pacific theater. Because this is a post Russian empire collapse civil war between two successor states, both crippled by corruption, alcoholism, deindustrialization, bad demographics, and the economic collapse of the end of the USSR. Ukraine is one of the few peer adversaries Russia could actually find in the world. This would not be called a peer conflict if a real country was involved, they’re peers of each other, not of the west or China.
When I shit on the Russian Empire’s military history that applies to both sides here. They’re both former Russian Empire. The fact that it’s a stalemate right now doesn’t imply that a mighty Russian military is successfully resisting the military superpower that is Ukraine, it implies that both of them have gotten stuck in the same swamp. I ask you again, what are these 'real countries' you speak of? The ones that 'totally could build up an army if they wanted to' do not count, because they only exist in your delusions. There are very few nations in the world that are actually capable of carrying out extended large scale campaigns like the one ongoing in Ukraine, none of them at a moment's notice. The only country in Europe that might have the will to produce and support sufficient amount of hardware and manpower for something of this scale is Turkey, nobody in the West wants to build and maintain thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery and miscellaneous pieces of gear, not to mention the millions of shells and boots on the ground needed for it. This is not a criticism of European nations, it's a statement of fact. Nobody wants to fight wars like this any more, and nobody wants to pay for wars like this, not in money and most certainly not in lives. Literally all of NATO combined is still unable to fulfill Ukraine's ammunition needs 500 days into the war, and you keep droning on about individual member states totes being able to crush those alcoholic slavs? Just ridiculous. You have yet to show even a basic understanding of my point and yet you keep responding only to miss it in the exact same way. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if a given western nation such as France was given 8 years to prepare for a large European artillery war it would be prepared. It is entirely unreasonable to argue that because they’re not presently prepared they could not possibly prepare if they had to. The fact that NATO powers aren’t prepared to invade Ukraine today is not proof that NATO could do no better than Russia had NATO started their preparations 9 years ago. This is so utterly obvious I can’t understand any possible motivation you might have for your obtuse denials of reality.
Additionally, Russia has invaded several countries over the last few decades, and Putin had been planning to invade the whole of Ukraine since at least 7-8 years before he gave the green light in 2022 (or rather late 2021, as that is when he started amassing his troops at the border). On such a large scale it's never a sudden decision, there's always a build-up of the military complex. Big countries don't just suddenly go to war with other big countries unless it's been planned for a long time. So Putin was considering an invasion of the whole of Ukraine for perhaps a decade or so, and actual preparations for this specific operation were probably underway since roughly 2014 when Putin realized that Kyiv had slipped away from him.
What that means is that a properly militarized Russia was unable to conquer a deeply corrupt Ukraine that had many gaps in its defense with a leader who initially wasn't sure whether he should believe US intel about an impending invasion.
If we take all of this into account, it becomes apparent that Russia strictly doesn't have the capacity to threaten other major countries that have any kind of meaningful military complex. And the US? They must be around ten times stronger than Russia. Easily.
This is why it's so absurd and laughable that pro-Russian propagandists are claiming that "NATO troops" are fighting in Ukraine against Russia. No, they're not. If NATO was involved, the Russian military would simply get bombed to complete dust. Their military would not exist within just a matter of months.
|
On August 23 2023 17:48 0x64 wrote:Where western media gets it wrong, it is when they fail to notice how 90% of the material sent toward kiev was a decoy to create panic. While everyone was laughing at the poorly prepared material, Russia managed to capture a huge part of the country before they got blocked by natural obstacles.
Sorry but do you have any actual sources for that claim?
Because the notion that Russia sacrificed their elite paratroopers in the assault on Kyiv and parked a convey dozens of kilometres long that was repeatedly bombed and attacked, including several high ranking personal that got killed by snipers, as a distraction seems unlikely.
|
United States43460 Posts
On August 23 2023 17:47 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 17:31 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 17:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 23 2023 16:49 Magic Powers wrote:On August 23 2023 14:59 KwarK wrote:On August 23 2023 14:39 RvB wrote:On August 23 2023 07:34 KwarK wrote:
When was the last time Russia even won a war without western industry backing them up?
People too easily forget that the Red Army moved on American jeeps in WW2. The sheer amount of American and British hardware that went to the USSR in WW2 was unbelievable and Stalin himself repeatedly insisted they would lose without it in his demand letters to the west.
After WW2 they lost in Afghanistan.
If we go to before WW2 they got fucked in Finland, before that lost to Poland. Before that was WW1 in which they somehow came in last place, losing to Germany which was itself on the losing side of the war. Before that there was their famous beatdown at the hands of Japan which at the time wasn't even on the list of world powers. Then before that the British took them on in Crimea and somehow they lost there despite Crimea being pretty far from Britain.
I guess technically they were eventually on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars but again, same side as the west. This is not an impressive military history. Basically the only reason Russia hasn't lost this war yet is because the people they're fighting are also part of the same historical empire that has never been able to get its shit together. Essentially a clown conflict, as we saw when on day 1 they blitzkrieged without any diesel in their tanks. Any real country would have beaten them by now.
The idea that anyone would seriously bet on Russia to win any conflict is as baffling to me as the idea that anyone would want them to. Lend lease mostly shortened the war. The deciding moments were in 1941 and 1942 before it really got going. The red army performance is seriously underestimated in the west. Stalin wrote a lot of telegrams to the British in 1941 saying, and I’m paraphrasing loosely here, “we’re going to lose unless you deliver the following materials to us immediately” and the British were pretty good about delivering his shopping lists. Think of it like the javelins in February 2022. It’s not as big as the subsequent aid but a small amount of what you need when you need it makes a big difference. Don't forget to mention Stalin was furious over the course of several years because the US wasn't opening a third front. It almost resulted in Russia getting successfully invaded (several times). And when the US finally put a third front on the map, Germany collapsed pretty close to instantaneously. Jesus Christ, is this what they seriously teach you in schools these days? That Germany collapsed after the US finally put a third front on the map? By the time Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were already pushing into Hungary and Poland. The war was effectively over at that point; opening of the Western front was no more consequential to the war in Europe than the Soviet steamroll of the Kwantung army was to the war in the Pacific theater. Because this is a post Russian empire collapse civil war between two successor states, both crippled by corruption, alcoholism, deindustrialization, bad demographics, and the economic collapse of the end of the USSR. Ukraine is one of the few peer adversaries Russia could actually find in the world. This would not be called a peer conflict if a real country was involved, they’re peers of each other, not of the west or China.
When I shit on the Russian Empire’s military history that applies to both sides here. They’re both former Russian Empire. The fact that it’s a stalemate right now doesn’t imply that a mighty Russian military is successfully resisting the military superpower that is Ukraine, it implies that both of them have gotten stuck in the same swamp. I ask you again, what are these 'real countries' you speak of? The ones that 'totally could build up an army if they wanted to' do not count, because they only exist in your delusions. There are very few nations in the world that are actually capable of carrying out extended large scale campaigns like the one ongoing in Ukraine, none of them at a moment's notice. The only country in Europe that might have the will to produce and support sufficient amount of hardware and manpower for something of this scale is Turkey, nobody in the West wants to build and maintain thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery and miscellaneous pieces of gear, not to mention the millions of shells and boots on the ground needed for it. This is not a criticism of European nations, it's a statement of fact. Nobody wants to fight wars like this any more, and nobody wants to pay for wars like this, not in money and most certainly not in lives. Literally all of NATO combined is still unable to fulfill Ukraine's ammunition needs 500 days into the war, and you keep droning on about individual member states totes being able to crush those alcoholic slavs? Just ridiculous. You have yet to show even a basic understanding of my point and yet you keep responding only to miss it in the exact same way. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if a given western nation such as France was given 8 years to prepare for a large European artillery war it would be prepared. It is entirely unreasonable to argue that because they’re not presently prepared they could not possibly prepare if they had to. The fact that NATO powers aren’t prepared to invade Ukraine today is not proof that NATO could do no better than Russia had NATO started their preparations 9 years ago. This is so utterly obvious I can’t understand any possible motivation you might have for your obtuse denials of reality. It's honestly so weird how you think that 'reality' and 'what could hypothetically happen in an entirely made up scenario' are one and the same.
You can’t just look at a nation that isn’t trying to do something and declare that based on their immediate circumstances that’ll they couldn’t do it. That’s like saying I could beat Usain Bolt in a sprint because he doesn’t want to race me.
|
On August 23 2023 18:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2023 17:48 0x64 wrote:Where western media gets it wrong, it is when they fail to notice how 90% of the material sent toward kiev was a decoy to create panic. While everyone was laughing at the poorly prepared material, Russia managed to capture a huge part of the country before they got blocked by natural obstacles.
Sorry but do you have any actual sources for that claim? Because the notion that Russia sacrificed their elite paratroopers in the assault on Kyiv and parked a convey dozens of kilometres long that was repeatedly bombed and attacked, including several high ranking personal that got killed by snipers, as a distraction seems unlikely.
He also said no counteroffensive is happening currently. Actually most of the post is not based in reality. Reminds me of a propaganda talking point bingo i saw not long ago, cant find it sadly 
|
@Magic Powers
Not exactly. During recent invasion Russia disregarded its own doctrine of fighting smaller countries (they shuld have ammassed 4 times the troops they used in first push). They are still fightining undermanned according to their own war handbooks. Which is very strange and indicates that policy concerns are trumping over military ones. Have they acted according to their own doctrine things might be very different but they didn't.
Russian leadership is apparently fine driving their countrys industry and economy into the ground, throwing away lives and stockpiles of ammo and equipment inherited from the Soviet Union. Their political infulance in Central Asia and Caucasus is also suffering as a result. They dont mind as long they stay in power.
|
On August 23 2023 18:12 Silvanel wrote:
@Magic Powers
Not exactly. During recent invasion Russia disregarded its own doctrine of fighting smaller countries (they shuld have ammassed 4 times the troops they used in first push). They are still fightining undermanned according to their own war handbooks. Which is very strange and indicates that policy concerns are trumping over military ones. Have they acted according to their own doctrine things might be very different but they didn't.
Russian leadership is apparently fine driving their countrys industry and economy into the ground, throwing away lives and stockpiles of ammo and equipment inherited from the Soviet Union. Their political infulance in Central Asia and Caucasus is also suffering as a result. They dont mind as long they stay in power.
Where do you have the information from about the true number of all pro-Russian troops that were stationed in Ukraine in the first days as part of the offensive?
|
I dont get where are You going with it? According to all known intel Russia had close to 200k troops at Ukrainian border pre invasion. This includes troops in Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. Should have been 800k-1mln according to their own handbook.
But that would require them to announce mobilization, take a lot of equipment out of long term storage and restore it, train people. Postion it along the border. No way they could claim "this is just a large exercise". Proper preparation would take years and everyone would see it, Russian society would feel it.
Instead they opted for "sneak attack". They choose to belive their own lies about Ukraine, that Ukrainians will fold at the first sight and run and their soldiers would be welcomed as saiviors. They choose to reat second largest European country the same way they treated Georgia. Seems ridicouls now, but thats how it went...
|
On August 23 2023 18:30 Silvanel wrote:
I dont get where are You going with it? According to all known intel Russia had close to 200k troops at Ukrainian border pre invasion. This includes troops in Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk. Should have been 800k-1mln according to their own handbook.
The reports of troops being amassed at the border did not, to my knowledge, include troops present in Ukraine prior to the invasion. The best estimate of those at the border was initially 100k to 200k, then around 190k (statement from Biden).
How many more were already in Ukraine before troops were sent to the borders of Ukraine in late 2021? I've seen reports of around 100k being present inside the Donbas region in 2021 before a mass encirclement of Ukraine and specifically the Donbas region was observed.
This is why I'm contesting the claim that there were exactly this or that many Russian troops participating in the early invasion. The true number could be in the upper 200k region instead of the upper 100k region. I'm currently looking for reputable sources that can independently confirm how many troops were actually stationed in and around Ukraine, and I'm not finding anything that's truly reliable beyond a very rough guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
