121–130 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You asserted that mainstream information is behind by a month.
No, I did not. I asserted that all this discussion by people [here] about Russia’s “humiliation” is out of date then I posted a NYT article to update the discussion here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Humiliated abroad The vast majority of human kind are neutral or pro Russia regarding the situation. Sorry, but the English speaking countries (sans India) and EU are not "the word" despite the sense of superiority and entitlement. As for Crimea, that ain't never happening. The people there are majority Russian and Tartar and with a very small Ukrainian minority. Not only does Wikipedia tell me that, but I've talke…
There was a UN resolution a while back condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Did 141 countries vote in favor of it with just 35 abstaining?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia has already been humiliated. According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks, maybe days, from consolidating and absorbing the Donboss. Keep in mind that Ukraine is the second largest military in Europe (after Russia) with their own military industrial complex, huge cache of Soviet weapons and the training and intelligence assets of NAT…
"Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel" That is a shallow measure. Most modern armies have "tooth to tail" [0] ratio less than 1:5. Combat-ready units constitute a minority of the entire military personnel everywhere, and Russia has deployed most of those in Ukraine. It cannot afford to deploy all of them, as it has long borders and shores that need patrolling. Russia no doubt has a huge cache of…
As for the (retrofitted) T-62s, those are mostly given to the Donboss militias and a perfect tank to use in the already conquered rear. They are still armor and they still function. US also runs some old gear if you didn't know.
As for the dud rates, I'd expect that for older missiles. Their new stuff (which is more advanced than anything the US has) is less than 10%. And it's clear they're not running out any time soon despite western media claims two months ago that their weapons stocks were days from depletion.
On the other hand, the dud rate for western supplied Javalins and NLAWs is around 80% as reported by Ukrainian military personnel. And it's actually now illegal for Ukrainian troops to publicly criticize the effectiveness of western supplied weapons.
Let's stop projecting and be honest about what's actually going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia has already been humiliated. According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks, maybe days, from consolidating and absorbing the Donboss. Keep in mind that Ukraine is the second largest military in Europe (after Russia) with their own military industrial complex, huge cache of Soviet weapons and the training and intelligence assets of NAT…
Under deploy your army, spread them too thin and attack at all fronts, send generals to die at the front line, retreat and focus everything on taking over a pile of rubble. It is hilarious, if only it wasn’t so sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll send you a $1,000 over Venmo or in Bitcoin if you can share where even a single top level Russian official said that amoung their goals was to take the capital.
> their goals was to take the capital. You think those large amount of troops and resources, that were in the process of attempting to surround and take the capital were just sacrificed for no reason? They spent a lot of resources on those attacks, and they didn't gain much from them. Surely you should consider that it was a mistake, and don't think it was intentional for them to have taken such losses with little to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russian here. I condemn this war but let's be realistic. The extremely poor performance of Russian military at the start of the war is due to the following factors: - extreme underestimation of Ukrainian people and government will to resist the occupation - extremely poor planning and overstretching the communication lines - frontlines in the beginning of the campaign were vastly undermanned for a conventional war (w…
Not Russian but B1 level Russian speaker with lots of experience in that country and armchair general of the 404th chairborn division. On your 2nd and 3rd points, you might be right. But have you considered the Russian war technique of Maskirovka and military feints? Maybe (somewhat) surrounding the capital city was pure incompetence or was actually part of the plan, either way, it sufficiency tied up and discombobul…
From what information I was able to absorb about the start of the campaign, I think that Putin indeed was planning to take Kiev and Kharkiv in less than a week, and then suppress the riots there using riot police - as evidenced by him bringing in riot police troops equipped to disperse unarmed mobs, not to fight am army.
Regarding Putin's objectives, they were (I think, intentionally) very vague - 'denazify Ukraine' and 'secure Donbass'. So, for example, you can bomb a kindergarten and call it a day: Ukraine is now 'sufficiently denazified', Donbass is secure, and we can safely go home. With such goals, Putin can stop the war at any day and his propaganda corps will present any state of affairs as 'the greatest victory since WW2'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is a fundamental misreading of China's relationship with Taiwan and China's intentions. China is likely to never attack Taiwan as long as the status quo is maintained, and as long as they believe that eventual peaceful reunification is possible. China's policy on Taiwan has not changed for decades. The problem is that the status quo may not be acceptable to the people of Taiwan and reunification is not accepta…
> Not really, if Putin had quickly succeeded I have not doubt that WWIII would have started with a failed attempt to take Taiwan followed by WWIII. What qualifications allow you to make claims with such confidence?
Unfortunately, China will likely attack Taiwan unless Russia is humiliated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China is definitely watching the US, but I don't think it's for the reason you imagine. China prefers peaceful reunification. They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. At the same time, peaceful reunification is a core interest of China. Which means that they will go to war, but only if they believe peaceful reunification is no longer possible. So yes they do watch the US to make calculations. But even if…
> They don't want to fight a war if they don't have to. China doesn't have to fight. They could just accept that the ROC/Taiwan is an independent country (which of course it is whether China accepts it or not). China has no obligation to start a war of conquest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their goals was to take the capital. You think those large amount of troops and resources, that were in the process of attempting to surround and take the capital were just sacrificed for no reason? They spent a lot of resources on those attacks, and they didn't gain much from them. Surely you should consider that it was a mistake, and don't think it was intentional for them to have taken such losses with little to…
You're thinking like a westerner as are so many other armchair generals. Russia military doctrine has more tolerance for loosing people and equipment if that helps achieve their end goal.
As in, they could have just not done a failed attack on the capital, and instead focused their troops on other regions to achieve some other goal.
However many resources they sacrificed on that attack could have been sacrificed elsewhere more effectively, which shows pretty clearly that this specific failed offensive wasn't some success and instead was a failed offensive that they had to back off on.