they couldn’t and still can’t handle their neighbor, so what makes them think they’re now all the sudden ready for a new multinational conflict? what is Russian for spread too thin? reliance on their asset djt is helping them but is it enough?
Their state of being unable to handle their neighbour is that they are winning incredibly slowly.
They don’t have the ability to conquer anyone else, but that’s not the only hot conflict that there can be. Drone attacks? Border skirmishes? Missiles “getting lost”?
Europe has also not successfully increased its military production to cope with the increased threat, so much of Europe’s ability to fight back is tied up in Ukraine
They are slowly gaining ground. If the war stopped today with the front line frozen they would have failed to achieve key objectives but would have succeeded in stealing vast amounts of territory with natural resources, people and industry (whatevers not destroyed), securing a corridor to Crimea, intimidating many small countries, and creating a bigger buffer between Russia proper and unfriendly countries.
One consequence of Russia invading Ukraine is that Finland and Sweden joined Nato. Finland has a 1,340 km border with Russia, so Putin has not created a “bigger buffer” - he has managed to double Russia’s border with Nato.
Also, the countries you label as unfriendly are peaceful countries who are only ‘unfriendly’ to Russia because they worry about Russian imperialist expansion, and Russia’s aggression habit.
Gaining ground isn’t the same thing as winning, a lesson that the Russians should be all too familiar with, as it’s how they beat the Germans in WW2 (though a more accurate point of comparison would be Germany’s failure against the West in WW1; they held significant ground in France at the time of their surrender. It wasn’t that their lines collapsed or that they were outmanoeuvred on the battlefield; it was their economy that could no longer bear the weight of the war). It is, in fact, an extremely effective strategy to slowly cede ground at a cost that is too high for your aggressor to bear, and that’s exactly what Ukraine is doing to Russia. This doesn’t mean Ukraine is guaranteed to win, but their success largely depends on the continued support of their allies in Europe and North America. Whereas Russia has no real clear path to success at this point.
Russian doctrine relies on punching a hole, moving and exploiting that gap to create a salient and outmanoeuvre your enemy. Ukraine has gotten too good at entrenching, and is creating deeply layered defences that the Russians have no way to break through in a decisive fashion, and Ukraine is being extremely careful with it’s manpower, whereas Russian continues to waste theirs on pointless attacks and dispersed operations. We’re seeing constant footage and reports of Russian sections consisting of only 2-4 men attacking over open ground with no vehicle support, and getting picked off as they come in by Ukrainian machine gun positions and FPVs. The Russian economy is grinding to a halt under the weight of the war; they held out a lot longer in the face of sanctions than anyone in the West predicted, but the choices they made early on to keep the economy flowing are now turning into major pain points (massive interest rate hikes to control inflation now turning into a serious lack of investment and consumer spending, dumped foreign currency reserves used to float the rouble now leaving them with no fallback for the hard times ahead, etc). Ukraine has developed new long range attack drones that can strike deep into Russia, opening up all of their industry, and particularly their oil refining capabilities, to attack. Russia is so big that they simply cannot defend all of it from aerial attack, and Ukraine’s intel is good enough that they can continually shift their focus to wherever Russia isn’t defending.
This is why Putin is eager to talk peace now. He would love to, as you describe, stop with their current gains. That would actually constitute a win. The longer this goes on for, the worse it gets for Russia, while Ukraine can continue to hold out for as long as we continue to stand with them and keep them supplied. Their manpower losses are serious, but manageable if they continue with their current strategies, and while Russia continues to hammer their infrastructure, Ukraine has superior - and more efficient - air defence and most of their manufacturing happens outside of the country where Russia can’t hit it.
Russian doctrine relies on punching a hole, moving and exploiting that gap to create a salient and outmanoeuvre your enemy.
According to whom?
According to the actual battlefield, Russian doctrine relies on throwing wave after wave of poorly trained criminals and shanghaied DPR/LPR citizens into the machine guns, artillery and drones of the Ukrainians.
Don’t get me wrong, there are massive weaknesses, and we may see Ukraine exploit them. But we aren’t seeing that translate to battlefield success. Putin hasn’t shown any eagerness to talk peace; only the same old “peace” meaning capitulation. He’s been keen on that since the beginning.
Funnily enough, experts on Russian battlefield doctrine. The ones I talked to all work in the CAF, but you’re welcome to search up your own sources on the subject. This guy was the commander of the US armed forces in Europe from 2014 to 2017, so I’d say he probably knows his stuff, and his analysis aligns with that of the experts I’ve spoken with; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qjrYpDDWS4&t=1s
If you’re trying to understand the disconnect between their doctrine and what’s actually playing out on the battlefield, it’s surprisingly simple really. This is what happens when you have an inflexible command structure that relies exclusively on doctrine and rigid adherence to chain of command (eg, individual soldiers are basically just machines to operated by their superiors), mixed with a huge amount of institutional corruption and an unwillingness to report the basic facts of the situation on the ground because it’s politically unfavourable to admit that things aren’t going to plan. The doctrine says “Smash a hole” so they try, and fail, repeatedly to smash that hole. That leads to waves of men being thrown at targets to no effect because if you haven’t smashed the hole you can’t move on to step two, so you just keep on repeating step one.
Russia is using WWII equipment, Ukraine recently retook a big piece of land, Russia’s economy is on the brink of collapse, opposition of the regime grows bolder day by day.
Yeah it’s pretty ridiculous. The outcome is what matters, though.
Ukraine recently retook a big piece of land
I don’t think this is true, and in any case, Russia is still advancing consistently. Go on DeepStateMAP and check the past few months (not every day - just once per month) and you will get the picture: no major breakthroughs, but grinding advancement.
Russia’s economy is on the brink of collapse
It’s been massively weakened by sanctions but a quick google for russian economy "brink of collapse" reveals as many articles predicting this as dispelling the predictions going back at least two years.
All casualties that Putin doesn’t give a shit about, so why is that important, really? There may come a point where Russia’s high casualty rate has significant domestic impact, but it is not yet. With control of the media, Putin is able to paint a much rosier picture at home, and when his military’s ranks are swollen with convicts and North Koreans, the actual losses are of lower impact to begin with.
To put it another way: if Russia is currently losing, what would you call a state in which Russia stops advancing? What would you call a state in which Ukraine were able to take back - and then hold - territory?
People who talk shit about how Russia is losing, is idiotic and so on, I think still have the mentality most people did in the first months of the invasion, when Russia had just been shown to be a complete paper tiger relative to prior expectations. A war they were supposed to win in a few days is still going, and they haven’t won it yet - a terrible humiliation for Russia. But the fact that they suffered a terrible humiliation, were ridiculously less powerful than most people believed, doesn’t mean they’re losing. “Slowly gaining territory at great cost” is not losing. Achieving a victory for Ukraine means a change from the current state of affairs; they need more weapons and support than they are currently receiving.
You haven’t actually disagreed with any of the potential things I pointed at Russia being able to do, or at Europe’s slow rearmament. Those were the substantive things.
All casualties that Putin doesn’t give a shit about, so why is that important, really?
The Russians should put you in charge of signing up new recruits. LMAO
There may come a point where Russia’s high casualty rate has significant domestic impact, but it is not yet.
Definitely put you in charge of the enlistment PR team. LMAO
With control of the media, Putin is able to paint a much rosier picture at home, and when his military’s ranks are swollen with convicts and North Koreans, the actual losses are of lower impact to begin with.
That explains all the state controlled media encouraging all Russians to take lots of road trips. LMAO
To put it another way: if Russia is currently losing, what would you call a state in which Russia stops advancing? What would you call a state in which Ukraine were able to take back - and then hold - territory?People who talk shit about how Russia is losing, is idiotic and so on, I think still have the mentality most people did in the first months of the invasion, when Russia had just been shown to be a complete paper tiger relative to prior expectations. A war they were supposed to win in a few days is still going, and they haven’t won it yet - a terrible humiliation for Russia.
At least you’ve correctly identified Russia’s terrible humiliation. Special Military Operation. LMAO
But the fact that they suffered a terrible humiliation, were ridiculously less powerful than most people believed, doesn’t mean they’re losing.
Make that your first recruiting slogan. LMAO
“Slowly gaining territory at great cost” is not losing.
To learn more, contact your local Recriting Officer. LMAO
Achieving a victory for Ukraine means a change from the current state of affairs; they need more weapons and support than they are currently receiving.
Yeah, they’ve only been able to kill a smidgen over a million Russians with their meager resources. Thankfully, the Russians haven’t sustained any serious equipment losses. LMAO
You haven’t actually disagreed with any of the potential things I pointed at Russia being able to do, or at Europe’s slow rearmament.
Sorry, I wasn’t able to see any of your points through the field of one point one million sunflowers. LMAO
Most of your reply is just continuing down this nonsensical fantasy. Are you ok?
You still haven’t replied to the points about European preparedness potential future russian aggression, and have now to top it all conflated casualties and deaths.
Lmao indeed. But I’m guessing you won’t be laughing the next time a cargo ship registered conveniently in the Caribbean “accidentally” causes damage to Western interests. Will you then connect your complacency to what’s happening?
You still haven’t replied to the points about European preparedness potential future russian aggression, and have now to top it all conflated casualties and deaths.Lmao indeed.
Russians have treachery going for them, and that’s about it. As far as military might is concerned, you can watch Russian soldiers, pilots, operators, drivers, vehicles explode in Ukraine. Up close and personal footage.
But I’m guessing you won’t be laughing the next time a cargo ship registered conveniently in the Caribbean “accidentally” causes damage to Western interests. Will you then connect your complacency to what’s happening?
Sabotage and treachery. This is what you do when you don’t have the Might. Whatever master plan you’re trying to spell out is an increasingly lame Hail Mary. If you want an accurate assessment of what they’re capable of militarily, land, air, or sea, watch them bleed during the Special Military Operation.
Cool! And since “sabotage and treachery” are perfectly capable of dealing great damage to Ukraine and other European nations alike, we should not be gung ho about Russia.
Cool! And since “sabotage and treachery” are perfectly capable of dealing great damage to Ukraine and other European nations alike, we should not be gung ho about Russia.
Conversely, we can watch them hemorrhage abroad, while all their domestic refineries burn.
they couldn’t and still can’t handle their neighbor, so what makes them think they’re now all the sudden ready for a new multinational conflict? what is Russian for spread too thin? reliance on their asset djt is helping them but is it enough?
Their state of being unable to handle their neighbour is that they are winning incredibly slowly.
They don’t have the ability to conquer anyone else, but that’s not the only hot conflict that there can be. Drone attacks? Border skirmishes? Missiles “getting lost”?
Europe has also not successfully increased its military production to cope with the increased threat, so much of Europe’s ability to fight back is tied up in Ukraine
Exactly how is Russia winning the war in Ukraine?
If you measure success by territory gained, they’re gaining ground. At a huge cost in lives and equipment, but they’re doing it.
But these are kilometers here and there, where Ukraine rather keeps forces alive than fighting for it.
Russia is not winning massive amounts of territory, their economy will crash once the war is over etc.
End of the day wars winner is measured by the government and it’s cost by it’s people.
They are slowly gaining ground. If the war stopped today with the front line frozen they would have failed to achieve key objectives but would have succeeded in stealing vast amounts of territory with natural resources, people and industry (whatevers not destroyed), securing a corridor to Crimea, intimidating many small countries, and creating a bigger buffer between Russia proper and unfriendly countries.
One consequence of Russia invading Ukraine is that Finland and Sweden joined Nato. Finland has a 1,340 km border with Russia, so Putin has not created a “bigger buffer” - he has managed to double Russia’s border with Nato. Also, the countries you label as unfriendly are peaceful countries who are only ‘unfriendly’ to Russia because they worry about Russian imperialist expansion, and Russia’s aggression habit.
Gaining ground isn’t the same thing as winning, a lesson that the Russians should be all too familiar with, as it’s how they beat the Germans in WW2 (though a more accurate point of comparison would be Germany’s failure against the West in WW1; they held significant ground in France at the time of their surrender. It wasn’t that their lines collapsed or that they were outmanoeuvred on the battlefield; it was their economy that could no longer bear the weight of the war). It is, in fact, an extremely effective strategy to slowly cede ground at a cost that is too high for your aggressor to bear, and that’s exactly what Ukraine is doing to Russia. This doesn’t mean Ukraine is guaranteed to win, but their success largely depends on the continued support of their allies in Europe and North America. Whereas Russia has no real clear path to success at this point.
Russian doctrine relies on punching a hole, moving and exploiting that gap to create a salient and outmanoeuvre your enemy. Ukraine has gotten too good at entrenching, and is creating deeply layered defences that the Russians have no way to break through in a decisive fashion, and Ukraine is being extremely careful with it’s manpower, whereas Russian continues to waste theirs on pointless attacks and dispersed operations. We’re seeing constant footage and reports of Russian sections consisting of only 2-4 men attacking over open ground with no vehicle support, and getting picked off as they come in by Ukrainian machine gun positions and FPVs. The Russian economy is grinding to a halt under the weight of the war; they held out a lot longer in the face of sanctions than anyone in the West predicted, but the choices they made early on to keep the economy flowing are now turning into major pain points (massive interest rate hikes to control inflation now turning into a serious lack of investment and consumer spending, dumped foreign currency reserves used to float the rouble now leaving them with no fallback for the hard times ahead, etc). Ukraine has developed new long range attack drones that can strike deep into Russia, opening up all of their industry, and particularly their oil refining capabilities, to attack. Russia is so big that they simply cannot defend all of it from aerial attack, and Ukraine’s intel is good enough that they can continually shift their focus to wherever Russia isn’t defending.
This is why Putin is eager to talk peace now. He would love to, as you describe, stop with their current gains. That would actually constitute a win. The longer this goes on for, the worse it gets for Russia, while Ukraine can continue to hold out for as long as we continue to stand with them and keep them supplied. Their manpower losses are serious, but manageable if they continue with their current strategies, and while Russia continues to hammer their infrastructure, Ukraine has superior - and more efficient - air defence and most of their manufacturing happens outside of the country where Russia can’t hit it.
According to whom?
According to the actual battlefield, Russian doctrine relies on throwing wave after wave of poorly trained criminals and shanghaied DPR/LPR citizens into the machine guns, artillery and drones of the Ukrainians.
Don’t get me wrong, there are massive weaknesses, and we may see Ukraine exploit them. But we aren’t seeing that translate to battlefield success. Putin hasn’t shown any eagerness to talk peace; only the same old “peace” meaning capitulation. He’s been keen on that since the beginning.
Funnily enough, experts on Russian battlefield doctrine. The ones I talked to all work in the CAF, but you’re welcome to search up your own sources on the subject. This guy was the commander of the US armed forces in Europe from 2014 to 2017, so I’d say he probably knows his stuff, and his analysis aligns with that of the experts I’ve spoken with; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qjrYpDDWS4&t=1s
If you’re trying to understand the disconnect between their doctrine and what’s actually playing out on the battlefield, it’s surprisingly simple really. This is what happens when you have an inflexible command structure that relies exclusively on doctrine and rigid adherence to chain of command (eg, individual soldiers are basically just machines to operated by their superiors), mixed with a huge amount of institutional corruption and an unwillingness to report the basic facts of the situation on the ground because it’s politically unfavourable to admit that things aren’t going to plan. The doctrine says “Smash a hole” so they try, and fail, repeatedly to smash that hole. That leads to waves of men being thrown at targets to no effect because if you haven’t smashed the hole you can’t move on to step two, so you just keep on repeating step one.
Russia is using WWII equipment, Ukraine recently retook a big piece of land, Russia’s economy is on the brink of collapse, opposition of the regime grows bolder day by day.
This does not seem like a winning power to me.
Yeah it’s pretty ridiculous. The outcome is what matters, though.
I don’t think this is true, and in any case, Russia is still advancing consistently. Go on DeepStateMAP and check the past few months (not every day - just once per month) and you will get the picture: no major breakthroughs, but grinding advancement.
It’s been massively weakened by sanctions but a quick google for
russian economy "brink of collapse"reveals as many articles predicting this as dispelling the predictions going back at least two years.And it’s only cost them one point one million casualties so far.
Bleeding out is an idiotic way to “win incredibly slowly”.
But I suppose the ends justify the means. In this case, ends refers to territory captured and held, and domestic oil production.
Winning incredibly slowly. LMAO
“I am bleeding, making me the victor.”
“I must apologize for Wimp Lo, he is an idiot. We have purposefuly trained him wrong, as a joke.”
All casualties that Putin doesn’t give a shit about, so why is that important, really? There may come a point where Russia’s high casualty rate has significant domestic impact, but it is not yet. With control of the media, Putin is able to paint a much rosier picture at home, and when his military’s ranks are swollen with convicts and North Koreans, the actual losses are of lower impact to begin with.
To put it another way: if Russia is currently losing, what would you call a state in which Russia stops advancing? What would you call a state in which Ukraine were able to take back - and then hold - territory?
People who talk shit about how Russia is losing, is idiotic and so on, I think still have the mentality most people did in the first months of the invasion, when Russia had just been shown to be a complete paper tiger relative to prior expectations. A war they were supposed to win in a few days is still going, and they haven’t won it yet - a terrible humiliation for Russia. But the fact that they suffered a terrible humiliation, were ridiculously less powerful than most people believed, doesn’t mean they’re losing. “Slowly gaining territory at great cost” is not losing. Achieving a victory for Ukraine means a change from the current state of affairs; they need more weapons and support than they are currently receiving.
You haven’t actually disagreed with any of the potential things I pointed at Russia being able to do, or at Europe’s slow rearmament. Those were the substantive things.
The Russians should put you in charge of signing up new recruits. LMAO
Definitely put you in charge of the enlistment PR team. LMAO
That explains all the state controlled media encouraging all Russians to take lots of road trips. LMAO
At least you’ve correctly identified Russia’s terrible humiliation. Special Military Operation. LMAO
Make that your first recruiting slogan. LMAO
To learn more, contact your local Recriting Officer. LMAO
Yeah, they’ve only been able to kill a smidgen over a million Russians with their meager resources. Thankfully, the Russians haven’t sustained any serious equipment losses. LMAO
Sorry, I wasn’t able to see any of your points through the field of one point one million sunflowers. LMAO
Of course they were. LMAO
Most of your reply is just continuing down this nonsensical fantasy. Are you ok?
You still haven’t replied to the points about European preparedness potential future russian aggression, and have now to top it all conflated casualties and deaths.
Lmao indeed. But I’m guessing you won’t be laughing the next time a cargo ship registered conveniently in the Caribbean “accidentally” causes damage to Western interests. Will you then connect your complacency to what’s happening?
Russians have treachery going for them, and that’s about it. As far as military might is concerned, you can watch Russian soldiers, pilots, operators, drivers, vehicles explode in Ukraine. Up close and personal footage.
Sabotage and treachery. This is what you do when you don’t have the Might. Whatever master plan you’re trying to spell out is an increasingly lame Hail Mary. If you want an accurate assessment of what they’re capable of militarily, land, air, or sea, watch them bleed during the Special Military Operation.
Cool! And since “sabotage and treachery” are perfectly capable of dealing great damage to Ukraine and other European nations alike, we should not be gung ho about Russia.
Conversely, we can watch them hemorrhage abroad, while all their domestic refineries burn.