EPTMore fodder for dodgy prisoner swaps...
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 707
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1409 Posts
More fodder for dodgy prisoner swaps... | ||
KwarK
United States43659 Posts
The more dynamic the battlefield the worse Russian command and control is revealed to be. They’ve derived a lot of benefit from the static battlefield so far but while Kursk remains volatile this kind of thing happens. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote: They lost their Black-Sea fleet against a country whiteout a Navy. They don't have full Air dominance, against a country with barely an Airforce. They planned for a Blitz and executed it so horrible, it immediatly made anyone go "wtf, how do they fuck this up so bad? let's pump some arms into Ukraine", they obviously stand a chance/deserve it. The US could obviously have done much better, but I firmly believe France and the UK, or basically any big western nation with a competent military, would have done much, much better in a similar conflict (which is a one sided offensive war 100% according to the terms of the attacker, it doen't get "nicer" than this). Why? Because they are not utterly riddled with corruption consisting of yes men from bottom to top. The entirety of British armed forces numbers less than 200k people, this is including land, air, and navy personnel, all the specialists and so on. They're also massively lacking in terms of armor, artillery, drones, mines, etc. Ignoring 'what if' scenarios of UK spending X years and Y funds on modernizing, recruiting, and equipping an army, they're straight up incapable of fighting a large-scale ground war against a near-peer adversary. There's simply not enough trained dudes or things to equip them with for that. France is slightly better, but not by much. From a pure numbers standpoint, the US is literally the only Western nation that has the numbers for this sort of a war. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1409 Posts
On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote: The entirety of British armed forces numbers less than 200k people, this is including land, air, and navy personnel, all the specialists and so on. They're also massively lacking in terms of armor, artillery, drones, mines, etc. Ignoring 'what if' scenarios of UK spending X years and Y funds on modernizing, recruiting, and equipping an army, they're straight up incapable of fighting a large-scale ground war against a near-peer adversary. There's simply not enough trained dudes or things to equip them with for that. France is slightly better, but not by much. From a pure numbers standpoint, the US is literally the only Western nation that has the numbers for this sort of a war. I think Velr's point was that countries like the UK and France would've taken Kyiv within the first week - which is what Russia expected, tried and failed to do - and so wouldn't have ended up in an attritional war that requires large numbers of troops. Ukraine wasn't supposed to be a near-peer adversary for Russia, but it turns out that having a superior number of troops, material and resource isn't very useful if your command structure is incapable of using them properly. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
785 Posts
On August 15 2024 22:50 MJG wrote: Do we really know that?I think Velr's point was that countries like the UK and France would've taken Kyiv within the first week When was it last time they did something like that by themselves against a country of Ukraine size/type? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote: The entirety of British armed forces numbers less than 200k people, this is including land, air, and navy personnel, all the specialists and so on. They're also massively lacking in terms of armor, artillery, drones, mines, etc. Ignoring 'what if' scenarios of UK spending X years and Y funds on modernizing, recruiting, and equipping an army, they're straight up incapable of fighting a large-scale ground war against a near-peer adversary. There's simply not enough trained dudes or things to equip them with for that. France is slightly better, but not by much. From a pure numbers standpoint, the US is literally the only Western nation that has the numbers for this sort of a war. No competent military would have to engage in what this war has become, not as the agressor in the style russia was. A competent military would have succeeded with Russias "Plan A". They would later most likely run into huge issue against partisans and so on but taking Kiev should have been the "easy" part. They had as much time to plan it as they wanted, they downright failed to plan and execute. But yes, the Brits and so on would most likely have changed their military doctrines and built up their capabilities before attempting such a thing but the initial attack didn't fail because of lack of numbers/tanks/or whatever, it failed due to horrible planing, incompetence and corruption. Ukraine isn't or shouldn't be a "near peer" to russia, it wasn't even an "adversary". | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8234 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43659 Posts
That’s the uniquely Russian failure here. They had complete control over the timing and strategy and yet were somehow unprepared and constantly getting in their own way. If you gave western nations ten years warning that they were going to engage in an existential struggle with a neighbour they’d have broad strategic alignment. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2724 Posts
On August 12 2024 05:08 Sent. wrote: They're surrendering because they were surprised, not because they fear the Ukrainian warrior. It's a failure of Russian mid-level leadership, not necessarily a result of poor quality/morale of the Russian troops in the area. Maybe. If so Kursk seems to be full of suprises judging by recent footage. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8234 Posts
On August 16 2024 00:33 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Maybe. If so Kursk seems to be full of suprises judging by recent footage. Quite: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-15/ukraine-reports-largest-surrender-by-russian-troops-of-the-war Ukrainian forces said they accepted the surrender of the largest single group of Russian soldiers since the start of the war more than two years ago, as Kyiv’s military claimed to continue expanding its cross-border incursion. A Ukrainian Security Service unit operating in Russia’s Kursk region took 102 Russian servicemen as prisoners-of-war, according to a person with knowledge of the operation, who asked not to be identified because the matter is sensitive. The Russians were captured Wednesday in a sprawling underground complex, and had ample stocks of ammunition and supplies, the person said. Russia hasn’t commented. 8 days later (The surrender happened yesterday/Wednesday), they still keep on getting surprised it seems. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote: No competent military would have to engage in what this war has become, not as the agressor in the style russia was. A competent military would have succeeded with Russias "Plan A". They would later most likely run into huge issue against partisans and so on but taking Kiev should have been the "easy" part. They had as much time to plan it as they wanted, they downright failed to plan and execute. But yes, the Brits and so on would most likely have changed their military doctrines and built up their capabilities before attempting such a thing but the initial attack didn't fail because of lack of numbers/tanks/or whatever, it failed due to horrible planing, incompetence and corruption. Ukraine isn't or shouldn't be a "near peer" to russia, it wasn't even an "adversary". Ok so you're not talking about actual, existing militaries but rather hypothetical what if scenarios. Got it. In that case, I stipulate that San Marino has the strongest army in the world. If they wanted to, they could beat the shit out of anyone with the secret powers of Holy Marinade. We should count ourselves so lucky that they are pacifists at heart. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43659 Posts
On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote: Ok so you're not talking about actual, existing militaries but rather hypothetical what if scenarios. Got it. In that case, I stipulate that San Marino has the strongest army in the world. If they wanted to, they could beat the shit out of anyone with the secret powers of Holy Marinade. We should count ourselves so lucky that they are pacifists at heart. This is an absurd criticism. In the hypothetical scenario the army would obviously be hypothetical too. If Britain were not an island then it would have fallen to Germany in 1940 because its actual existing allocation committed far harder to its navy than its army. But in that hypothetical it wouldn’t have gone allin on the navy. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote: Ok so you're not talking about actual, existing militaries but rather hypothetical what if scenarios. Got it. In that case, I stipulate that San Marino has the strongest army in the world. If they wanted to, they could beat the shit out of anyone with the secret powers of Holy Marinade. We should count ourselves so lucky that they are pacifists at heart. Actual, existing militarys would plan and change their doctrines according for the mission/goal before comitting to a mission/goal. If this is a hypothetical too wild for you, why even bother to entertain any what if scenario? | ||
|
a_ch
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote: Actual, existing militarys would plan and change their doctrines according for the mission/goal before comitting to a mission/goal. If this is a hypothetical too wild for you, why even bother to entertain any what if scenario? Because your wet fantasies and 'what ifs' look same absurd as Holy Marinade to anyone, who has the slightest glimpse of reality. On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote: Why? Because they are not utterly riddled with corruption consisting of yes men from bottom to top. You are the literal yes man because what you think is controlled by propaganda to the extent of an Islamic Shaheedi. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7104 Posts
On August 16 2024 00:29 KwarK wrote: Other countries also wouldn’t have had to contend with all the support Ukraine is getting because they wouldn’t have engaged in a global enemy making tour in the decade before an illegal invasion. Non Russian nations would have aligned their foreign policy in such a way that they didn’t have a bunch of rich well armed countries looking for payback around the time they attacked. That’s the uniquely Russian failure here. They had complete control over the timing and strategy and yet were somehow unprepared and constantly getting in their own way. If you gave western nations ten years warning that they were going to engage in an existential struggle with a neighbour they’d have broad strategic alignment. Sorry but that is just plain wrong. By this point we all know that rising temperatures and therefore a rising sea water level is gonna drown and destroy half the landmass in the next 20-30 years and we do batshit to combat that... | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
Yet it couldn't win vs one of the poorest countries in the world and is instead willingly feeding its soldiers into a meatgrinder. Ukraine only ever got real aid once it had shown, that it actually can fight and possibly even win... Even the aid it gets now is laughable compared to what "the west" could pour into Ukraine if it truely wanted (and it's a shame it doesn't). | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8234 Posts
On August 16 2024 18:06 Velr wrote: Ok, so why did Russia fail so damn hard? By the numbers it was the second strongest military in the world. Yet it couldn't win vs one of the poorest countries in the world and is instead willingly feeding its soldiers into a meatgrinder. Ukraine only ever got real aid once it had shown, that it actually can fight and possibly even win... Even the aid it gets now is laughable compared to what "the west" could pour into Ukraine if it truely wanted (and it's a shame it doesn't). Just a small correction, Ukraine did get aid before the 2022 invasion. As a response to 2014, they started receiving some equipment, such as Javelins, from the US, which ended up being integral to the ability to combat the initial wave. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43659 Posts
On August 16 2024 18:03 Harris1st wrote: Sorry but that is just plain wrong. By this point we all know that rising temperatures and therefore a rising sea water level is gonna drown and destroy half the landmass in the next 20-30 years and we do batshit to combat that... Sea level rises aren’t expected to half the world’s landmass in 30 years by any estimate. Global warming is real but that forecast isn’t. There isn’t enough water on earth to make that true. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10854 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22125 Posts
On August 16 2024 18:06 Velr wrote: corruption and complacency.Ok, so why did Russia fail so damn hard? By the numbers it was the second strongest military in the world. Yet it couldn't win vs one of the poorest countries in the world and is instead willingly feeding its soldiers into a meatgrinder. Ukraine only ever got real aid once it had shown, that it actually can fight and possibly even win... Even the aid it gets now is laughable compared to what "the west" could pour into Ukraine if it truely wanted (and it's a shame it doesn't). We saw it with the reports of the initial invasion. Tanks breaking down, supplies trucks stranded on the edge of the road with their tires torn up. Lack of proper maintenance because money got siphoned off into peoples pockets and no one expected the equipment to actually be needed. Who the hell fights wars against anyone but desert tribes in the 21st century... An army can look intimidating on paper but such failures don't show themselves unless your actually at the base checking on the state of equipment. combined with bad tactics (the 60km convoy that got stuck on a narrow road because the lead vehicles were taken out) and a Ukraine that had been trained and had actual combat veterans from the 'civil war' fighting. Keeping an army ready for action is very expensive. That's why most countries don't have much standing military, and why the US spends more then the rest of the top 10 combined. | ||
| ||
