|
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 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote:On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote:On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote:On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote:On August 14 2024 21:52 Ryzel wrote:On August 14 2024 21:22 Velr wrote:
So, because mighty Russia plain can't?
It's so hilarious in retrospect that this was seen as the second strongest conventional army on the planet. Logically, this isn’t sound. What other conventional armies have been tested in war recently that have performed better than Russia’s? Ukraine probably shouldn’t count because they’re so reliant on Western support. You can be the national leaderboard’s second strongest conventional army on the planet and still be dogshit, until a third army starts something and shows it is better. 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. 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. 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?
I don't. What ifs about which country could do better in a hypothetical war are no more interesting than 'my dad could beat up your dad' talks, and just as accurate (ie, not at all). You claimed that Russia's military sucks and countries like UK or France or any other Western country would do better -- in the real world, they would not, because they lack the numbers and the funding. What ifs beyond that aren't interesting to me, so if your point was that 'they could have been if...' then yeah sure whatever. I still think San Marino is best, though.
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).
They failed because they underestimated Ukraine, actually quite similarly to how you and many other posters here do. Ukraine had a standing army comparable in numbers to that of Russia's, and something like a million of reservists, national guard, and other misc units that were available to be mobilized and equipped rapidly. They also have a significant stockpile of armored vehicles, artillery, mines, and all the other sorts of things that are necessary for large-scale land war (and which countries like France or the UK lack). Perhaps most importantly, they were actually willing to fight and die for their land; which was a big difference from what happened in Crimea.
I mean, it's not like Russia is the first country to overestimate their capabilities and fail spectacularly. If anything, overestimations and failures happen far more often than successes in offensive military operations of significant scale.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2024 19:23 Salazarz wrote:
They failed because they underestimated Ukraine, actually quite similarly to how you and many other posters here do. Ukraine had a standing army comparable in numbers to that of Russia's, and something like a million of reservists, national guard, and other misc units that were available to be mobilized and equipped rapidly. They also have a significant stockpile of armored vehicles, artillery, mines, and all the other sorts of things that are necessary for large-scale land war (and which countries like France or the UK lack). Perhaps most importantly, they were actually willing to fight and die for their land; which was a big difference from what happened in Crimea.
I mean, it's not like Russia is the first country to overestimate their capabilities and fail spectacularly. If anything, overestimations and failures happen far more often than successes in offensive military operations of significant scale.
-this depends on what you assume to be the goal of the initial operation. If, as Putin has said himself a number of times, it was a quick operation aimed at forcing a government change, or at least forcing an agreement of neutrality status, then you're right. Still the publicly stated goals and the reality do not always align, and the fact is, that the attack has been two-pronged, with the second resulting in a huge success of capturing 70 thousand sq km of southern territories, and securing a landbridge to Crimea (btw, to cut it - has been the main goal of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023). So it is certain that the commanders of that operation at least had a plan B, and I cannot exclude the possibly that it has been the main goal all along, (or to put a dilemma to the Ukrainian gov-t of choosing between the neutrality status and losing these territories as a sort of a blame game).
|
On August 16 2024 19:23 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote:On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote:On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote:On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote:On August 14 2024 21:52 Ryzel wrote:On August 14 2024 21:22 Velr wrote:
So, because mighty Russia plain can't?
It's so hilarious in retrospect that this was seen as the second strongest conventional army on the planet. Logically, this isn’t sound. What other conventional armies have been tested in war recently that have performed better than Russia’s? Ukraine probably shouldn’t count because they’re so reliant on Western support. You can be the national leaderboard’s second strongest conventional army on the planet and still be dogshit, until a third army starts something and shows it is better. 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. 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. 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? I don't. What ifs about which country could do better in a hypothetical war are no more interesting than 'my dad could beat up your dad' talks, and just as accurate (ie, not at all). You claimed that Russia's military sucks and countries like UK or France or any other Western country would do better -- in the real world, they would not, because they lack the numbers and the funding. What ifs beyond that aren't interesting to me, so if your point was that 'they could have been if...' then yeah sure whatever. I still think San Marino is best, though.
Velr's point remains that other countries would've gotten more value out of their resources than Russia did because other countries have professional militaries with better command structures and lower levels of corruption. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that countries like the UK and France are capable of doing things like informing their infantry that they're going to war before sending them into a foreign country.
If you didn't want to engage with hypotheticals then why did you even bother replying to a comment chain predicated on hypotheticals..?
|
On August 16 2024 20:05 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 19:23 Salazarz wrote:On August 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote:On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote:On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote:On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote:On August 14 2024 21:52 Ryzel wrote:On August 14 2024 21:22 Velr wrote:
So, because mighty Russia plain can't?
It's so hilarious in retrospect that this was seen as the second strongest conventional army on the planet. Logically, this isn’t sound. What other conventional armies have been tested in war recently that have performed better than Russia’s? Ukraine probably shouldn’t count because they’re so reliant on Western support. You can be the national leaderboard’s second strongest conventional army on the planet and still be dogshit, until a third army starts something and shows it is better. 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. 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. 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? I don't. What ifs about which country could do better in a hypothetical war are no more interesting than 'my dad could beat up your dad' talks, and just as accurate (ie, not at all). You claimed that Russia's military sucks and countries like UK or France or any other Western country would do better -- in the real world, they would not, because they lack the numbers and the funding. What ifs beyond that aren't interesting to me, so if your point was that 'they could have been if...' then yeah sure whatever. I still think San Marino is best, though. Velr's point remains that other countries would've gotten more value out of their resources than Russia did because other countries have professional militaries with better command structures and lower levels of corruption. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that countries like the UK and France are capable of doing things like informing their infantry that they're going to war before sending them into a foreign country. If you didn't want to engage with hypotheticals then why did you even bother replying to a comment chain predicated on hypotheticals..?
"Russian army is a joke, UK or France could totally wage a large scale land war better!"
"No they couldn't, they don't have the numbers or the budgets to do so."
"Well, they totally could if they wanted to and spent a few decades preparing!"
"I'd rather talk about what exists in the real world instead of what ifs like this."
"Why did u engage in hypotheticals then!!!!!"
???
As for your first point, I mean, I assume secrecy around the invasion was because they didn't want to give Ukrainians time to dig trenches and plant minefields since, as we've seen over past couple years, assaulting trenches and minefields fucking sucks.
|
On August 16 2024 21:16 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 20:05 MJG wrote:On August 16 2024 19:23 Salazarz wrote:On August 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote:On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote:On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote:On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote:On August 14 2024 21:52 Ryzel wrote:On August 14 2024 21:22 Velr wrote:
So, because mighty Russia plain can't?
It's so hilarious in retrospect that this was seen as the second strongest conventional army on the planet. Logically, this isn’t sound. What other conventional armies have been tested in war recently that have performed better than Russia’s? Ukraine probably shouldn’t count because they’re so reliant on Western support. You can be the national leaderboard’s second strongest conventional army on the planet and still be dogshit, until a third army starts something and shows it is better. 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. 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. 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? I don't. What ifs about which country could do better in a hypothetical war are no more interesting than 'my dad could beat up your dad' talks, and just as accurate (ie, not at all). You claimed that Russia's military sucks and countries like UK or France or any other Western country would do better -- in the real world, they would not, because they lack the numbers and the funding. What ifs beyond that aren't interesting to me, so if your point was that 'they could have been if...' then yeah sure whatever. I still think San Marino is best, though. Velr's point remains that other countries would've gotten more value out of their resources than Russia did because other countries have professional militaries with better command structures and lower levels of corruption. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that countries like the UK and France are capable of doing things like informing their infantry that they're going to war before sending them into a foreign country. If you didn't want to engage with hypotheticals then why did you even bother replying to a comment chain predicated on hypotheticals..? "Russian army is a joke, UK or France could totally wage a large scale land war better!" "No they couldn't, they don't have the numbers or the budgets to do so." "Well, they totally could if they wanted to and spent a few decades preparing!" "I'd rather talk about what exists in the real world instead of what ifs like this." "Why did u engage in hypotheticals then!!!!!" ??? As for your first point, I mean, I assume secrecy around the invasion was because they didn't want to give Ukrainians time to dig trenches and plant minefields since, as we've seen over past couple years, assaulting trenches and minefields fucking sucks.
Being competent and avoiding corruption are also things that exist in the real world.
Russia's military clearly doesn't have those traits if they can't trust their men (including the officer class) not to leak operational information.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On August 16 2024 22:01 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 21:16 Salazarz wrote:On August 16 2024 20:05 MJG wrote:On August 16 2024 19:23 Salazarz wrote:On August 16 2024 17:51 Velr wrote:On August 16 2024 16:28 Salazarz wrote:On August 15 2024 23:26 Velr wrote:On August 15 2024 22:46 Salazarz wrote:On August 14 2024 22:44 Velr wrote:On August 14 2024 21:52 Ryzel wrote:
[quote]
Logically, this isn’t sound. What other conventional armies have been tested in war recently that have performed better than Russia’s? Ukraine probably shouldn’t count because they’re so reliant on Western support.
You can be the national leaderboard’s second strongest conventional army on the planet and still be dogshit, until a third army starts something and shows it is better. 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. 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. 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? I don't. What ifs about which country could do better in a hypothetical war are no more interesting than 'my dad could beat up your dad' talks, and just as accurate (ie, not at all). You claimed that Russia's military sucks and countries like UK or France or any other Western country would do better -- in the real world, they would not, because they lack the numbers and the funding. What ifs beyond that aren't interesting to me, so if your point was that 'they could have been if...' then yeah sure whatever. I still think San Marino is best, though. Velr's point remains that other countries would've gotten more value out of their resources than Russia did because other countries have professional militaries with better command structures and lower levels of corruption. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that countries like the UK and France are capable of doing things like informing their infantry that they're going to war before sending them into a foreign country. If you didn't want to engage with hypotheticals then why did you even bother replying to a comment chain predicated on hypotheticals..? "Russian army is a joke, UK or France could totally wage a large scale land war better!" "No they couldn't, they don't have the numbers or the budgets to do so." "Well, they totally could if they wanted to and spent a few decades preparing!" "I'd rather talk about what exists in the real world instead of what ifs like this." "Why did u engage in hypotheticals then!!!!!" ??? As for your first point, I mean, I assume secrecy around the invasion was because they didn't want to give Ukrainians time to dig trenches and plant minefields since, as we've seen over past couple years, assaulting trenches and minefields fucking sucks. Being competent and avoiding corruption are also things that exist in the real world. Russia's military clearly doesn't have those traits if they can't trust their men (including the officer class) not to leak operational information.
There are strong reasons to believe this simply to be a straight-up lie for propaganda reasons:
These soldiers have been taken prisoners in the northern direction, which means that previously they have been participating in the joint maneuvers in the Belarus territory. They definitely had knowledge about the ramifications in the Russia-Ukraine relationships, Putin's statement about recognition of D\LPR at 22 Feb and so on. To think that among them there has not been at least a suspicion that they're being preparing for an attack is just showing that you have no basic idea on the circumstances of the events.
On the other hand - among hundreds of POWs it is easy to find several who'd say anything you want. If you've seen Zolkin's channel, there many more outrageous confessions out of the Russian POWs interviews.
|
On August 16 2024 22:22 a_ch wrote:
....
On the other hand - among hundreds of POWs it is easy to find several who'd say anything you want. If you've seen Zolkin's channel, there many more outrageous confessions out of the Russian POWs interviews.
Thats obviously true.
As for the rest, so why were they so ill prepared for their mission and seemed to not even know it? Somehow Russia badly misjudged it's own power and ability to do such a mission when not thanks to corruption? The alternative would be incompetence or other not any better reasons.
What made Russians think that Ukraine would basically "welcome" them?
The assesments Russia made before it's attack, be it about Ukrainians, about it's own troops and capabilities, even about the fucking weather at the time of the year, about the reaction of the west.... Basically everything turned out to be bad or plain wrong.
|
On August 16 2024 23:00 Velr wrote:
What made Russians think that Ukraine would basically "welcome" them? This one is somewhat predictable.
This is what soldiers of invading armies are usually told to feel better about themselves and what they are going to do soon.
|
Canada11350 Posts
But it wasn't just at the infantry level that they thought that.
Their operational level planning also assumed that as well. See the VDV in the Antonov Airport and really the whole Kyiv offensive. In line with that, there was a clear switch around March or so of the first year where the Russians began their bombing/ missile attacks against cities. Prior to that their missile attacks on cities were more judicial/ less indiscriminate. A gear shifted when they realized it would not be a quick war.
|
All I think is thank god russians are so incompetent and stupid. Imagine a world where russia conquers all of ukraine like everyone in the west thought, then they would be attacking finland and causing hell there and moldovia. Luckily we don't live in that world. We live in a world where they are so incompetent that they cant defeat ukraine (their neighbor, in a land war, with best possible conditions, exactly the type of war russia is prepared for) even though they prepared for ww3 for 50+ years.
|
On August 16 2024 18:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2024 18:03 Harris1st wrote: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... 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.
Okay it was exaggerated but my point stands :D
|
I really chose the best time to go on holiday, I still am but what a day yesterday for the RuAF:
3 HIMARS launchers confirmed destroyed with a 4th possible waiting confirmation.
1 MiG-29 taken out with the pilot preparing for takeoff and all the support staff on the runway.
2 Patriots in the Dnepropetrovsk region taken out with cluster munition, not cheap.
1 IRIS-T with its crew
Obviously posting every hit would make the post too long so below is a highlight reel. Though just search himars or patriot on X and you will get the specific videos
https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1824575509268926936
Unprecedented losses and likely the most single-day costly since the start of the conflict. On the attritional side the armor losses are mounting up to counteroffensive levels with over 100 Ukrainian IFVs destroyed geolocated in the Kursk direction alone.
Kiev soldiers also abandoning their last positions within New York might be that the Russians announce the complete capture today.
Things are speeding up.
|
Is "Kiev soldiers" different than ukrainian soldiers? Also who geolocated 100 ukrainian ifvs destroyed? Oryx is very good at geolocating so if they say it then I trust it. We know many russian ifvs are destroyed in kursk for example, counting these as ukrainian would be stupid.
Also it's not "speeding up", russia is still losing territory slowly in kursk and other frontlines are static.
Also its so annoying because posting fake stuff is so easy and takes effort to debunk. I could swear that the mig was destroyed several days ago and one himars launcher was confirmed destroyed, but I really doubt all of this happened in the same 24 hours as the link you said claims. Also when videos on youtube showed himars destroyed and mig destroyed, no one has mentioned patriot destroyed yet, so this obviously didn't happen in the same 24 hours, it would be incredibly unlikely.
Also you are so incredibly biased in favour of russia. When ukraine destroys a column of 500+ russian soldiers in kursk recently its silence, when ukraine destroys several s400 launchers its silence, when they take 1000+ km^2 in kursk its silence.
i'm not like you but I can be like you, it's very easy:
Unprecedented Russian losses, likely the most significant casualties since the conflict began. On the attritional side, Russian armored losses are escalating rapidly, with over 100 Russian IFVs destroyed and geolocated in the Kursk direction alone, as Ukrainian forces continue to apply pressure.
Russian soldiers are reportedly abandoning their last positions near Korenovo, making it likely that Ukrainian forces will announce its complete capture soon.
Momentum is clearly on Ukraine's side, and things are moving fast.
I know zeo will never ever change his mind when he's this emotionally invested into russia winning but w/e.
|
On August 17 2024 21:09 sertas wrote:
Is "Kiev soldiers" different than ukrainian soldiers? Also who geolocated 100 ukrainian ifvs destroyed? Oryx is very good at geolocating so if they say it then I trust it. We know many russian ifvs are destroyed in kursk for example, counting these as ukrainian would be stupid.
Also it's not "speeding up", russia is still losing territory slowly in kursk and other frontlines are static.
Also its so annoying because posting fake stuff is so easy and takes effort to debunk. I could swear that the mig was destroyed several days ago and one himars launcher was confirmed destroyed, but I really doubt all of this happened in the same 24 hours as the link you said claims. Also when videos on youtube showed himars destroyed and mig destroyed, no one has mentioned patriot destroyed yet, so this obviously didn't happen in the same 24 hours, it would be incredibly unlikely.
Also you are so incredibly biased in favour of russia. When ukraine destroys a column of 500+ russian soldiers in kursk recently its silence, when ukraine destroys several s400 launchers its silence, when they take 1000+ km^2 in kursk its silence.
i'm not like you but I can be like you, it's very easy:
Unprecedented Russian losses, likely the most significant casualties since the conflict began. On the attritional side, Russian armored losses are escalating rapidly, with over 100 Russian IFVs destroyed and geolocated in the Kursk direction alone, as Ukrainian forces continue to apply pressure.
Russian soldiers are reportedly abandoning their last positions near Korenovo, making it likely that Ukrainian forces will announce its complete capture soon.
Momentum is clearly on Ukraine's side, and things are moving fast.
I know zeo will never ever change his mind when he's this emotionally invested into russia winning but w/e.
Also the Patriot hit by cluster munitions was likely a decoy array and the second "Patriot" was probably a Hawk battery.
Supposedly they talk about it in this recent video, I haven't watched it.
https://www.youtube.com/live/57D4hJj2F1g
But consensus seem to be no actual Patriots were hit. IDK if they hit an IRIS-T. Since it's zeo claiming it and I haven't heard anything about it, even at pro-russian places, probably not.
|
Finland931 Posts
It's like Russian sources reporting every single missile strike and artillery barrage as a HIMARS hit, and every single destroyed artillery position as a destroyed HIMARS launcher.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/m25FtCDH/be9d19bf-f933-4334-8ae3-4a38ae52cb8c.jpg)
There are reports (and some videos impossible to geolocate) of Russian forces withdrawing from Tyotkino and possibly Glushkovo after Ukraine blew up a number pf bridges in that area. Also reports of Korenevo being cut off by the Ukrainian forces. In the next couple of days we could potentially see Ukraine double its gains in the Kursk region, with minimal losses at that.
|
On August 18 2024 00:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 21:09 sertas wrote:
Is "Kiev soldiers" different than ukrainian soldiers? Also who geolocated 100 ukrainian ifvs destroyed? Oryx is very good at geolocating so if they say it then I trust it. We know many russian ifvs are destroyed in kursk for example, counting these as ukrainian would be stupid.
Also it's not "speeding up", russia is still losing territory slowly in kursk and other frontlines are static.
Also its so annoying because posting fake stuff is so easy and takes effort to debunk. I could swear that the mig was destroyed several days ago and one himars launcher was confirmed destroyed, but I really doubt all of this happened in the same 24 hours as the link you said claims. Also when videos on youtube showed himars destroyed and mig destroyed, no one has mentioned patriot destroyed yet, so this obviously didn't happen in the same 24 hours, it would be incredibly unlikely.
Also you are so incredibly biased in favour of russia. When ukraine destroys a column of 500+ russian soldiers in kursk recently its silence, when ukraine destroys several s400 launchers its silence, when they take 1000+ km^2 in kursk its silence.
i'm not like you but I can be like you, it's very easy:
Unprecedented Russian losses, likely the most significant casualties since the conflict began. On the attritional side, Russian armored losses are escalating rapidly, with over 100 Russian IFVs destroyed and geolocated in the Kursk direction alone, as Ukrainian forces continue to apply pressure.
Russian soldiers are reportedly abandoning their last positions near Korenovo, making it likely that Ukrainian forces will announce its complete capture soon.
Momentum is clearly on Ukraine's side, and things are moving fast.
I know zeo will never ever change his mind when he's this emotionally invested into russia winning but w/e.
Also the Patriot hit by cluster munitions was likely a decoy array and the second "Patriot" was probably a Hawk battery. Supposedly they talk about it in this recent video, I haven't watched it. https://www.youtube.com/live/57D4hJj2F1gBut consensus seem to be no actual Patriots were hit. IDK if they hit an IRIS-T. Since it's zeo claiming it and I haven't heard anything about it, even at pro-russian places, probably not.
Its a one minute search. First strike was on 3 Patriot launchers and their radar system. You can see them firing missiles trying to intercept the incomming Iskander
https://x.com/squatsons/status/1824520528817951105
Second video from yesterday shows two Patriot launchers and a radar getting hit.
https://x.com/squatsons/status/1824563705717330347
Reminder that these systems ajusted for inflation cost between 1.2 - 1.5 billion dollars each. Must be some expensive decoys that fire missiles at incoming targets lol
|
a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
|
On August 18 2024 03:18 sertas wrote:
a launcher is not worth 1.2-1.5 billion, its the whole complex cost. If they're legit I will see them on youtube soon. Russia is known for posting old footage aswell.
Also it doesn't change the fact that the video you posted is wrong, it said 24 hours, it's not, its maybe last 2 weeks (why do i have to fact check this anyway , as i said it takes to much work)
It always takes way more effort to disprove fake news than it takes to throw it out there in the first place. And when you do, it's not going to change anyone's mind; they'll just move on to the next bullshit. The only winning move is to not engage.
|
On August 18 2024 03:11 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2024 00:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On August 17 2024 21:09 sertas wrote:
Is "Kiev soldiers" different than ukrainian soldiers? Also who geolocated 100 ukrainian ifvs destroyed? Oryx is very good at geolocating so if they say it then I trust it. We know many russian ifvs are destroyed in kursk for example, counting these as ukrainian would be stupid.
Also it's not "speeding up", russia is still losing territory slowly in kursk and other frontlines are static.
Also its so annoying because posting fake stuff is so easy and takes effort to debunk. I could swear that the mig was destroyed several days ago and one himars launcher was confirmed destroyed, but I really doubt all of this happened in the same 24 hours as the link you said claims. Also when videos on youtube showed himars destroyed and mig destroyed, no one has mentioned patriot destroyed yet, so this obviously didn't happen in the same 24 hours, it would be incredibly unlikely.
Also you are so incredibly biased in favour of russia. When ukraine destroys a column of 500+ russian soldiers in kursk recently its silence, when ukraine destroys several s400 launchers its silence, when they take 1000+ km^2 in kursk its silence.
i'm not like you but I can be like you, it's very easy:
Unprecedented Russian losses, likely the most significant casualties since the conflict began. On the attritional side, Russian armored losses are escalating rapidly, with over 100 Russian IFVs destroyed and geolocated in the Kursk direction alone, as Ukrainian forces continue to apply pressure.
Russian soldiers are reportedly abandoning their last positions near Korenovo, making it likely that Ukrainian forces will announce its complete capture soon.
Momentum is clearly on Ukraine's side, and things are moving fast.
I know zeo will never ever change his mind when he's this emotionally invested into russia winning but w/e.
Also the Patriot hit by cluster munitions was likely a decoy array and the second "Patriot" was probably a Hawk battery. Supposedly they talk about it in this recent video, I haven't watched it. https://www.youtube.com/live/57D4hJj2F1gBut consensus seem to be no actual Patriots were hit. IDK if they hit an IRIS-T. Since it's zeo claiming it and I haven't heard anything about it, even at pro-russian places, probably not. Its a one minute search. First strike was on 3 Patriot launchers and their radar system. You can see them firing missiles trying to intercept the incomming Iskander https://x.com/squatsons/status/1824520528817951105Second video from yesterday shows two Patriot launchers and a radar getting hit. https://x.com/squatsons/status/1824563705717330347Reminder that these systems ajusted for inflation cost between 1.2 - 1.5 billion dollars each. Must be some expensive decoys that fire missiles at incoming targets lol
Your first link is what people more knowledgeable than me say is a Hawk system. And it might also be a miss if you watch the video.
Your second link is what people consider to be a (Patriot) decoy.
Why is it likely a decoy?
a) It's well known that Ukraine has Patriot decoy sites.
b) The radar is right next 2 to launchers and they are all in close proximity which is apparently not standard (you don't have to have the rader next to the launchers, you certainly don't have to put the entire system so ONE cluster strike takes them out.
c) Compare the fields. There are no track signs, these systems didn't just set up. They have been in place for quite a while.
d) The video cuts right away. Why not show some impressive explosions or at least burning vehicles? It was dead on, we know AA systems go boom when they get hit. But maybe the launchers were empty so they didn't explode?
e) But if the launchers were empty why didn't they move them or at least reload them? Going back to (c), there are no tire tracks on that field so they haven't moved them recently after shooting and are waiting for new missiles in a new spot either.
It's well known that Russia cuts a lot of videos short when they miss or fail to damage the target. Just recently there was a Lancet hit on Stryker where a full sequence shows it driving away afterwards. So maybe they did hit a Patriot battery but I think the arguments that they didn't seems stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
