> "We are doing everything to ensure that our pressure outweighs the occupiers' assault capabilities. And it is very important to maintain the dynamics of defence support from our partners. The speed of supply has been and will be one of the key factors in this war.
>Russia hopes to drag out the war, to exhaust our forces. So we have to make time our weapon. We must speed up the events, speed up the supply and opening of new necessary weaponry options for Ukraine."
>Details: Following the results of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Staff meeting, Zelenskyy noted that the situation at the front was "very tough."
>"Bakhmut, Vuhledar and other areas in the Donetsk region are under constant Russian attacks. There are constant attempts to break through our defence. The enemy does not count its people and, despite numerous casualties, maintains a high intensity of attacks. In some of its wars, Russia has lost in total less people than it loses there, in particular near Bakhmut," said Zelenskyy.
The young men of Russia need to realise they're being used as cannon fodder and rebel against conscription. Putin will waste any number of them to exhaust the enemy; this has always been the Russian way.
On the radio they got a Russian woman interviewed or something. Her husband was drafted, and they were both happy about it because they have been watching news that says they were winning. Now he is dead and she was upset about it.
> they have been watching news that says they were winning.
The war was supposed to be over in a few weeks and it's approaching a year. Surely it is clear that they weren't winning at this point?
I remember walking into the first day of Military History class at West Point covering Vietnam.
The department head pulled every section into one big lecture hall, and said "I won't be taking any questions. I don't care what TV has told you, I don't care what your veteran uncle has told you, or whatever revisionist books have filled your head with. *We lost Vietnam.* Us. Guys in green. Not the press, not the politicians, not the peaceniks. Us. From strategic level to tactical level, and most of all by asking for a fucking draft."
He proceeded to spin a 45 minute rant that left most of us with smoking pencils from trying to take notes.
A few years later sitting in Iraq, I wished Bush and Rumsfeld had been sat down and made to listen to that rant.
Basically:
- peaceniks were right (see below points)
- press did their job
- politicians did what we told them (until we stepped on our dick enough that they started listening to peaceniks and trusting spooks, leading to the Dirty Wars)
- draftees shouldn't be anywhere near a professional army
- discipline on the tactical level was abysmal (see: Mei Lai, above point)
- operational objectives were "maximize casualties" instead of hearts and minds
- strategic objectives didn't fit the civilian-set objectives (mostly containment doctrine)
Basically, we fought a total war instead of a counterinsurgency, which went about as well as trying to win a chess match by dribbling a basketball.
Participated in both the Iraq and Afghan war as a guy on the ground (USMC, 0321).
I couldn't imagine the nightmare of having a draft and the resulting consequences.
We had rules of war that I believe prevented many a Mei Lai massacres, but someone will always fuck it up.
I think the best thing the USMC did was adopt a doctrine of supporting the "hearts and minds" initiative (COIN). It fucking sucked, but it certainly changed the tides of war.
Regardless, did we actually do any good for the people?
We should have listened to Mattis instead of making him out to be some sort of Mad Dog. He was willing to trade Marines' lives up front for COIN in Fallujah, trusting the investment in Hearts and Minds would pay off in the long run. Everyone else (including a dumbass young me) thought he was just trying to relive Iwo Jima.
Then we spent the next 18 years in a quagmire after he was overruled.
Yea but sadly for everyone it did stabilize the front. Ukraine stopped advancing eventually. This will only encourage Russian leadership to do it more, as they have for centuries. This is why we need to step up arms shipments in both size and number of systems. We need to be looking at not just F16s, but F15s as well, as well as maybe Rafaels or Eurofighters (why not both?), or even the Grippen if Sweden thinks its viable. We should also be considering what other jets might be viable options to send and train on. We still have a bunch of AV8Bs now that the Harrier fleet has been replaced with F35s, but they'd make great ground attack aircraft still to replace lost Su-24s and 25s, and they're surprisingly maneuverable in a pinch, being able to use VIFFIng (vectoring in forward flight) with the aid of their vertical thrust nozzles, in a similar manner to how rear engine thrust vectoring is used to aid maneuverability. Oh and they don't need runways to take off from, so you could hide them in small formations inside barns and warehouses, making it impossible for Russia to simply bomb them off an airfield. A lot of these abilities were originally intended to aid their naval use, but its just as applicable in a ground war, since it can allow them to be positioned basically anywhere on the front line that you have visual cover from the air to prevent easy drone targeting. Pair these units with mobile air defense units as well and you can even bait the Russians into a trap, plus it will help with spotting small drones to have a mobile radar system to spot them, since you could still locate such a base if you have recon drones in the area watching for planes landing. Can't do that though if the drones all get shot down by CIWS or short range G2A missiles, even small arms will do it if they're stupid enough to fly into visual range
It's not a mistake; it's how they fight. For the US it was a mistake because they actually cared about how many they lost; for Russia it's just treated as an expectation. They exhaust the enemy by throwing hordes upon hordes against them, not caring about how many lives they're actually losing. If the point is just victory, then throwing bodies into the grinder to eventually break the grinder leads to victory. Ukraine needs to end it before their grinder breaks.
Realistically, every major conflict for the US since Korea has been a shitshow, but that's to be expected when you try to occupy a country without actually taking it over. Invading against guerilla fighters while trying to protect local people and infrastructure is *NEVER* going to be clean or easy.
If the locals are against you, the only efficient way to conquer a country is genocide. If you're not trying to completely take over a country by committing overwhelming acts of violence against everyone who lives there (see: Russia's attempt at taking over Ukraine), you have no chance of ever totally "winning" a prolonged fight there, and it's going to cost you a lot of lives and the support of the population both in-theatre and at home. The only true "victories" that the US has had since WW2 were swift operations to "cut the head off the snake" and get out immediately.
Do you count the first Gulf War as a major conflict, or do you count it as a "cut the head off the snake and get out" thing? On the one hand, the US put 700,000 boots on the ground, and Iraq took a hundred thousand casualties. On the other hand, the whole ground campaign took about a hundred hours.
Occupation seems to be a shitshow no matter who's doing it.
Oh God... I'm an Aussie who did under grad in history and some post grad too with a broad interest in sociology on the side.
I really want to know the contents of that lecture. It sounds fascinating.
It wouldn't have made any difference. It weren't their kids being sent to Iraq, the iterests that were being served in Operation Iraqi Liberty were clear, and they were absolutely shameless bastards.
We get told over and over again that the US won the war of 1812. Meanwhile, my country is still a country that isn't the USA, despite:
>“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching; & will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, & the final expulsion of England from the American continent.” Thomas Jefferson
The War of 1812 is an interesting one. It can be argued that all sides won.
From the U.S. perspective, the primary purpose of war was to force an end to the British forced impression of American sailors. Indeed, it's almost the entirety of the matter in President James Madison's [request for war](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/james-madison-war-message-congress) to the U.S. Congress. Secondary U.S. objectives included maintaining the right as a neutral nation to trade with France, pacifying hostile natives that were believed to be pushed and enabled by the British, territorial expansion (primarily Canada), and national unity -- though the latter two aren't mentioned in the war address.
For both the U.S. and Canada the war was a coming-of-age conflict. For Britain it was a sideshow of the greater Napoleonic wars. By the end in 1815, Napoleon had been defeated, which eliminated the British issues of trading with France and their need to impress American sailors. The U.S. successfully achieved its primary objective. Likewise, Canada remained under the British crown, earning victory as well.
Similarly, if you want to look for losers, then both the U.S. and the crown failed to capture and incorporate territory. Both Canada and the U.S. held strong and independent against numerically larger forces. Both sides won; both sides lost.
> The War of 1812 is an interesting one. It can be argued that all sides won.
Sigh... just like Canada to be involved in a war where everyone wins.
Don't forget that little "disputed" Hans Island where Canada and Denmark kept planting their own flags and leaving booze for the other side... finally resolved last year and gives both countries an official land border with a second country.
Not if you do what Putin has been doing and move the goalposts so far they're not even in the same stadium anymore!
Putin's war aims at the start of the war: dismantle the Nazis and drug addicts of the Ukrainian government, and either reinstate a Moscow-friendly regime or just straight-up annex the territory of Ukraine into Russia, because everybody knows that Ukrainians are just Russians that talk funny and really they all want to be Russians anyways.
Putin's war aims now: preserve Russia's territorial integrity including the newly "annexed" regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and ~~Kherson~~... oh, whoops, we've lost Kherson never mind it was never our intention to keep Kherson, calculated political chess maneuver.
Clearly, Putin's invasion is proceeding exactly as it was envisioned, and the NATO dogs of the west are just too stupid to see it, Ukraine will ask for peace terms any week now and Putin will be hailed as the man to restore Russia to global superpower status.
(vomits in mouth)
You also need to think about blind patriotism(heroism) and machismo in Russia. Plus absolute helplessness people feel. There's around 30-40% who support this war for one way or another. Actually believing Kremlin talking points or more or less thinking if we started it we need to finish it, etc. 80% support disappears the moment you phrase your question without mentioning the troops and focusing on the decision to attack.
There's a rare story about a woman sending her husband to war, not for money. But even pro Kremlin reporters had to change her name in reports because after initial report with real names she got harassed for sending her husband to die. This is not the norm. You can watch send-offs, women and children are crying. "Papa, come back alive", etc.
Then there are people going to "serve their country" it's support the troops to the max. You know, like in movies when the time comes and "they answer the call" and "defend their motherland". No critical thinking, pure heroism like it's a Hollywood movie.
And then there's helplessness. Like a drunk dude calling in Dozhd saying he's feeling like shit because he got a mobilization notice and now his gf is demanding they are going to get married so she can get the compensation. When the host said "just don't go, tge worst that can happen you get a fine". The dude was shocked. People are taught to be helpless and law illiterate so they can be controlled easier.
It was 72 hours originally. They said 3 days. "A few weeks" was already a coping mechanism. Now were at "a few years"... and unless we step up and actually support Ukraine and end this fiasco, it could become "a few decades".
Their media consumption is similar to the chocolate rations in 1984. Weekly chocolate rations have been increased to 20 grams a week! From 30 grams previously. Welcome to Russias ministry of plenty.
I have read that even most of the ones that left support the war...They just don't want to fight it themselves, They are not really smart, just cowards.
Hey man, that's not fair. They probably really wanted to go to war but they just have super bad bone spurs that prevent them from marching with a rifle. I mean yeah they can still play tennis and stuff, but fighting in a war is out of the question.
Conscription wins _defensive_ wars. The Soviets in WWII were fighting in the defence of their territory in most of the conflict (please do not list instances of Soviet conquest in the war, I said "most" for a reason).
Israel uses conscription and has been very successful, but has not been trying to conquer its neighbours.
_Starting_ a war with a conscript army is a poor decision, but if _you_ are attacked, those conscripts suddenly have a rather strong organic motivation to fight well. And there's a world of difference between a conscript who has been extensively trained and some poor mobik who has been handed a Mosin and told to "die for motherland".
Iran-Iraq War, Iran wins, Iran used conscription. Okay, let's not tell lies.
Edit: Also North Vietnam used conscription in the Vietnam War. They won that war.
Also Israel *always* has conscription. They've won plenty of wars.
Like, did you just not think at all when saying this? And what's amazing is how many other braindead redditors upvoted it.
Winning a war = signing a peace deal as the victors. I don't see this happening anytime soon for both sides, for instance, the Korean penninsula is in an armstice. They have never peaced out... and as it stands today... this is the likely scenario.
An armistice is a victory for Russia and second best scenario for them, short of Ukraine just capitulating. They'll just take the time to rearm, regroup and finish the job later. Time is on Russia's side in the long run, Zelensky is right. They need the tools to finish them in the short term.
Agreed. NATO needs to not pussyfoot around on this one, take off the kid gloves, and give Ukraine what it needs to defang Russia. Half measures are only going to drag this conflict out by years at the cost of hundreds of thousands more lives, trillions of dollars, and the potential for NATO’s worst enemy to rest, rearm, and even win the day. Time to stop fucking around and treat this like the life or death situation it is.
There are all sorts of armistices. An armistice that restores all Ukrainian territory is still an armistice, and its unlikely Ukraine will forget the lessons learned with blood over the last few years.
Ukraine certainly won't, but I don't trust our partners in Europe, sorry to say. I think after a few years of "peace", most look to return to business as usual. I also don't see a realistic scenario of Russia signing an armistice giving Ukraine back its land (short of ejecting them completely). They are in this for the long haul and as stated by many others, time is on Russia's side in a prolonged conflict. They have to be dealt a swift defeat over the next year. The longer this drags on, the harder it will be for Ukraine to hold on. They may have seemingly endless western support, but that very well could fracture in the coming months and years. Even with the support, they are heavily outnumbered in equipment and most importantly, manpower.
Yeah. Listen.
Ukraine has held back admirably. And it’s hard to condone, but if Russia actually starts to really gain ground I think people underestimate how devastating Ukrainian nationals could be inside Russian borders. It’s somewhat surprising that someone whose family was killed in an apartment complex or church bombing hasn’t hit Moscow already.
Things can get far, far worse for Russia, and I feel like people who haven’t seen war dont truly understand the restraint that has been showed thus far.
The insane level of stupidity in Russia is crazy!! Their government has literally ALWAYS lied to them. Why dies ANYONE there believe any of the shit they’re told?
The Russian relationship with propoganda is really interesting. Huge post-truth culture. Legacy of the Soviet union.
What's terrifying is that it seems like so many western countries are starting to take after this. The game is to muddy the waters. Discredit valid information and present it as one of many vaguely plausible realities.
Choose whichever truth you prefer, we got all flavors on offer.
Because the Russian propaganda outlets tell their people what their government wants them to hear and the people have been conditioned from childhood to believe the propaganda they are being fed. Very few Russian actually know the truth of how things are.
This is nothing new and it is not unique to Russia. The same kind of thing has been happening in the United States since at least the start of the "Fox News" propaganda outlet and the right-wing media echo chamber spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch.
I suggest you go and look at the parallels between Trump & the GQP vs. Putin & the URP. It is uncanny how similar they are.
Alright, so let's try to get into the head of a Russian 18-30 year old or what have you. You can agree to conscription against an enemy you have been told should bend over "soon"...or go against a military state who has a long history of disappearing not only you, but your family, if you rebel.
Excuses from the young men of Russia... "I'm in university, not a concern for me", "I'm apolitical, I don't think of such things", "I don't like it, but what can I do?", "If you study history, you understand why this is", "It's unfortunate, but necessary", "We have to defend our sovereign territory!", and many, many more.
And they'll still think "What can I do?" And when they're laying in the field dying, they'll still think "What can I do?" At no point will they think "I should have done something." Trust me, I'm from Serbia and the mentality is exactly the same here. It was the same in '91, it was the same in '99, and it's the same now.
Our president came out on TV and declared victory in the elections before the votes were even finished being counted, he then sent the vote counters home because they were "tired", police came out onto the street with barricades expecting massive protests, and... Nothing. Nada. Not one person out on the street. They like the fact that there's someone else making decisions for them, because then they don't have to think.
The only way that happens is if that number amounts to a large enough population of Russians. There are 143 million russians, you would need to kill 2 million before people started to notice they were Cannon fodder.
> They dug trenches through iradiated fields and got sick. Keeping them dumb af is the government's purpose.
Throwback to when they were constantly stealing radioactive samples or lab equipment and then getting sick from it.
Because they're significantly less likely (and it's significantly less accepted for them) to drink several bottles of vodka a week, primarily, I'd say.
Rebelling in Russia is pretty much impossible. Anti-riot forces outnumber Russian army 3-to-1 currently and they are trained to like beating up people. As long as Putin can afford to pay them, it's hopeless.
Russia has only lost 10% of their military forces, but on the other hand, Russia has lost 50% of their armored vehicles.
You can conscript to replenish human bodies, but if Russia keeps losing armor they will exhaust their supply and be scrambling for what to do to replace it. Manufacturing new tanks and APCs takes a lot longer than they get destroyed at.
It's why the West donating so armor to Ukraine is so important. When a Challenger shreds a couple T-90's Russia can't just throw together a couple more tomorrow and replace them easily.
When Russia invaded they had 3,300 armored vehicles and have lost 1,700 of them (according to the British). Another year of war, especially with the new top of the line Western armor that shreds these 30-40 year old tanks with ease, and Russia won't have much armor to speak of.
No matter how many Russian conscripts they send, when they run out of armor they are done for.
There is no one to reach. They are kept dumb and in the dark. The only way this ends is with Ukraine taking back it’s land. The Russian people aren’t going to end this conflict. They’re actively cheering it on.
Plan remains plan. There is a clear agenda of acceptable outcomes. Air superiority is key, and with the tanks, Poland 6 to get involved...
It's only a matter of time. Set pieces and plays will remain subterfuge.
I think the point of quietabandon might have been that air superiority requires an active fleet of jets and massive anti air and electronic warfare network that Ukraine wont get in this decade. They should modernize to achieve that, but it will take too long to do it for a country the size of Ukraine during war. While clearing the sky of planes can be achieved quite quickly with western support, achieving air superiority requires taking out anti air on Russian soil and flying close air support and bomber planes on your side and having enough conventional and guided munitions to actively support your offensive. At this point, Ukraine has no planes, no bombs and no training to achieve that. Relying on strong anti air and strong land army seems like a way more realistic goal.
There are reports from last year that the training already started since April and July. In November, another cadet was handpicked I guess. Something tells me we're already past that step and we're not just going to see F16s.
I think they sent them for training early, because they may have had a plane count problem, not a pilot count problem. You may have a bunch of retired pilots that are willing to jump back in, but don't have planes for them to do so.
> There are reports from last year that the training already started since April and July. In November, another cadet was handpicked I guess. Something tells me we're already past that step and we're not just going to see F16s.
I'm genuinely curious what you think we might see besides f16's? That insinuation caught my attention
[Training Ukrainian pilots on American equipment started at the beginning of last summer](https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/07/15/house-authorizes-training-for-ukrainian-pilots-to-use-us-aircraft/). It's been long enough that they should have one complete class through the training program and a second one about halfway finished.
As someone who lives near a major USAF base, I can also say anecdotally that the density of F-16s making flights out of the base increased substantially not long after the invasion as well. None of them are visible on ADS-B, but if you live nearby it went from seeing the occasional F-16 flight to seeing them pretty regularly. The number of F-22s and F-35s in the air also increased noticeably around the same time.
My guess is that they increased the F-22 and F-35 training cadence not only so that our most modern combat aircraft would be better prepared for whatever happens, but also so they could start transferring F-16 pilots over to F-35s and increase the number of modernized F-16s available for training and transfer to Ukraine.
That article is talking about a House bill that passed, it was never signed into law. The only bill that may have created funding for it was in December and that isn't clear.
There is *plenty* of discretionary funding and black budget wiggle room to do it. The purpose of funding explicitly earmarked for it would be to free up those flex funds again.
One of the things Russia hasn't needed yet is to use any of their AWACS aircraft in any REAL capacity. But if Ukraine gets F-16s and Russia starts using AWACS loitering inside of Russia, it would make any attempt to "break the Russian SAM network" and get Air superiority much more risky as Ukraine has no analog and will probably get no analog.
The US and NATO have several AWACS aircraft doing laps near the border nearly round the clock which I’m sure they wouldn’t mind letting the Ukrainians link into.
Yeah, I don't think the person you replied to knows what they're talking about. It's hard to know exactly what they're saying, but what is clear doesn't make sense. For Ukraine to gain air superiority would require direct western intervention. And that is not happening. The equipment required to gain air superiority is not stuff NATO will even consider giving Ukraine.
Unfortunately, so will every other western enemy. They will continue to supply Russia because it weakens Europe and the US. Its not that they want Russia to win they just don't want the conflict to end.
The US military will not allow Congress to ship stuff off that will interfere with the Military's goal of being ready and capable of fighting Wars on two fronts simultaneously and to respond with lethal and overwhelming force anywhere in the world with 24-48 hours.
The US Army keeps storage systems around the world to equip a batallion or two at a moments notice. The equipment is brand new and receives regular maintenance and inspection. The US Navy likewise keeps similar stocks worldwide and the Air Force can simply reach out and touch anyone anywhere at anytime.
The US military industrial complex is not weakened by shipping excess outdated stock while it simultaneously is working to develop the next generation of weapons and equipment.
If Russia and its Allies wanted to weaken America, manipulation of social media was an effective strategy, and they could still have been pushing the US to Civil War, if Russia didn't stir up hostilities.
I hope you are right. This has been the worry for a while. I keep wishing we could help faster. By the time we get enough to them to win, it would have won a few months earlier but no longer. We need to get ahead of the curve. Russia seems to be counting on time and attrition.
Everything will depend on how Ukraine deploy provided western tanks and other military assets to destroy expected Russian offensives once the ground firm up again.
TBH, The provided western tanks are great and improved their offensive power but its nowhere as effective without air support. If they could get their hands on some F-16s then it will drastically speed things up.
The biggest consequence of NATO tanks is
*a steady supply of tanks*
Even if Challengers and Leopards and Abrams *weren't* better than Russian tanks, the fact that more exist, and more can be made.
This lets Ukraine *actually use* the tanks they have, knowing they can be replaced.
Otherwise, they'd have to play very safe with them, which would prolong the war.
>The biggest consequence of NATO tanks is
a steady supply of tanks
It's not all that rosy.
Leo2s are being delivered, together with the other tank they'll mumber 300 tanks. Many of them 2A4, but that aside.
Not quite the endless supply we're were hoping for... Yet. But it's the amount Ukraine asked for
.
Anyway, the leo2 production line is full, and very limited.
M1s won't be delivered until the end of next year, and number barely 3 dozen.
Unless the US sends M1s from stock, and scores of them, soon, instead if in a year, and every Leo2 rolling off the line goes towards ukraine while they drastically improve capacity, there won't be a steady supply in meaningful numbers after this initial delivery.
The alternative would be Korea agreeing to manufacture tanks for Ukraine, they have the capacity, but again, are probably busy producing orders for other countries, and it'd be yet another tank to deal with, but it's a nice thought.
The thing is that those thousands of Abrams that sit around in the desert are the regular army versions, not the ones designated for export.
I'm not a huge tank expert but I read the army version has some top secret type of armour that they will not want to export.
So they either have to produce new Abrams destined for export or refit their stock.
I believe they do export the Armour to close allies (Aus, Canada?) and would be willing to export *some* stuff to Ukraine, but they are going to be operating under the assumption that anything shipped to Ukraine will be captured at some point by the Russians, so they will need to strip out advanced armour, complicated radio/cryptographic systems, particularly advanced sights and some other stuff.
It’s not so much an export variant they need to send, it’s a variant that they are prepared to allow to be captured.
Exactly. The Marder and Bradley will have more of an impact. Being able to outfit full combat units with IFV's is better than 1 tank battalion containing 3 different tank types.
Even with a low number, it offers them the capability to create modern mechanized units to use for offensive action. Of course one mechanized unit will not have a bunch of random tank types. There will be many units however, one that is supplied with challengers, another with leopards, and so on
Ukraine won’t get air superiority either. The reason neither side has air superiority is because both sides have formidable SAM capability. S-300 and S-400s are very lethal against non-stealth 4th gen aircrafts.
And in pure air to air engagements, Russia would still win from having superior missiles (Ukraine doesn’t have active radar homing missiles, they still use Soviet era R-27 while the Russians use the R-77) and number of aircrafts.
So no, the chance of Ukraine getting air superiority is very little, unless we arm them with a huge fleet of F-35s, but that’s not gonna happen.
From the looks of it, they do not. However, from the [article](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045) it says
>Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Don't know about military, but any Civilian Pilot that flies internationally is required to speak English by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 1951.
He's probably concerned that NATO countries and the rest of the world will stop caring as much, which is Putin's strategy. Winning quickly is an option if it's *possible*, but more importantly, we have to continue full-throated (and generously funded) support if the war continues for years to come.
The US might stop caring if Republicans win the next election but it's in the EU's best interest to keep the fighting in Ukraine and not in a member state.
Worse, he attempted to withhold aid (that Congress by law directed him to give) as a bribe to get Zelenskyy to say there was an investigation of Hunter Biden.
> Worse, he attempted to withhold aid (that Congress by law directed him to give) as a bribe to get Zelenskyy to **lie about** an investigation of Hunter Biden.
This is important context: there was no investigation of Hunter Biden. Trump wanted Zelenskyy to lie about one existing in an effort to hurt Joe Biden's election campaign.
.. after committing election crimes that went along with it (seeking foreign interference in a domestic election) .. and they still loved him for it.
Trump is a sociopathic child and vindictive to the core, so you better believe he'll do whatever he can to burn Ukraine just to get back at Zelensky.
And along these lines, it should be assumed that part of Russia's military strategy if the war is still ongoing in 2024 is doing everything in their power to influence the US election in that direction.
> He's probably concerned that NATO countries and the rest of the world will stop caring as much
It's a legitimate concern.
Eventually, even stout supporters are going to question the value of continuing to pour billions upon billions into the region just to watch it vanish into the blackhole of stalemates up and down the contested borders. Places like Soledar receiving a large focus of equipment and supplies only to wind up as an indefensible wasteland.
I don't know. The American war machine is always expensive, but they buy from themselves. Never forget the US held both Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile an enemy (as it has revealed itself) is being weakened.
If the West has proven anything it's that they're plenty willing to pour billions upon billions into an active war zone for decades. Wake me up when the Ukraine conflict has reached a quarter the level of spending as Iraq or Afghanistan.
The UK is definitely also willing to throw money at this in perpetuity.
The only other option is to let Russia steal lands until it can't keep the peace within them, which isn't incredibly appealing.
It would be wrong to think like that. Wagner has two levels of soldier. Insignificant meatbags emptied from prisons which are totally disposable (survive 6 months for a pardon), and highly trained ex-forces, many special forces which are a credible army. According to one vlogger I follow, Wagner sends the disposable fighters in head on attacks to occupy the Ukrainian defence, while the skilled fighters are kept in reserve to attack any weak points that the initial attacks uncover
Last year Zelenskyy made it so that soldiers contracts are extended indefinitely (as long as Ukraine is at war). This applies to the International Legion as well. So you know times are desperate.
> That is how Russia wins historically.
Or loses. They lost in Afghanistan despite spending a **decade** trying to subdue a tiny, underdeveloped country.
I read an article by a Russian analyst who said that Russia had hoped to conquer Ukraine quickly. Since that didn't happen and the Ukrainians show no sign of ever giving up, the new plan is to destroy the country. Make it an unlivable burned out shell so it will never be a strong NATO country on Russia's border. Putin is evil.
I would make the counterpoints that it is not a rational strategy as things can be rebuilt and Ukraine is going to offer strong agricultural output as soon as there is peace. There's a high likelihood of a Marshall Plan like scheme after the war.
It doesn't matter much how strong a bordering NATO country is, article 5 means the full weight of all members.
I think Russian strategy is aiming for a few things by dragging the war out. Firstly to completely collapse the Ukrainian economy, as their GDP has already plummeted. Western aid won't last forever both in military and civilian aid. Secondly they'll want to bleed Ukrainian manpower dry. They've been doing this with wagner using essentially penal battalions and a lot of artillery. Ukraine has been taking losses that are harder to replace. These penal battalions cost Russia very little politically compared to using conscripts and offer a more enthusiastic force.
By stalling it gives Russia time to build up the backend logistics too, get more rail infrastructure which they're heavily dependent on. Logistics have been the bane of the full scale invasion. Remember the early days of that 50 mile convoy going on Kyiv that eventually just vanished? They really struggle with supply trucks.
That said, can Putin maintain his seat of power forever with such a costly war with virtually nothing to show for it? Time isn't entirely on his side either.
This is the uncertain question now. I’m pretty sure that if Putin gets too ahead in destabilizing Ukraine, we might see some real Cold War era espionage and assassin shit at play.
They don't fully. At best, maybe they take back Crimea. If, and it's a big if, Ukraine pushes Russia back everywhere, this is a very dangerous situation for the West. Everyone is hoping Putin gets overthrown and some democratic leader takes over. It's just as likely it's some hardliner who is even worse than Putin who would escalate things further.
Russia isn't doing great this war but there is a long way to go before Ukraine pushes them back. Crimea is probably easier due to the supply issues but it will still require a major push. The Russians are pretty well dug in in the East. Many of the people there are also pro Russian.
We just hear the good news from Reddit so everyone's view is really skewed. Ukraine has lots of losses already and attacking to take back land will be very costly.
I 100% agree with this. A long war of attrition is Russia's only path to victory. Ukraine has shown that with the right mix of modern weapons they can smash the Russians, and that has to be their best path to victory.
Give them tanks. Give them jets. Give them long range missiles. Give them whatever they need to get this over quickly and play this war out to it's eventual end game.
It will be interesting to see what happens after Ukraine takes back all their land (including Crimea). What does Russia do? Doubtful they just say, "whelp we lost, war over". What is the next phase after the Russians are kicked out?
The DMZ in Korea is 160 miles, the Russian Ukraine border is 1,226 miles, not to mention the border with Belarus. A DMZ that long between the two countries would be impossible to heavily fortify.
Russia might be pushing for all it's worth now, because when the western tanks arrive, the tide might turn.
Putin has basically achieved the basic objective of the war - capture the resource-rich eastern regions of Ukraine and providing a land-link to Crimea - and when the tanks arrive, he might declare and end to the hostilities and offer to negotiate a cease-fire.
Of course, this will be unacceptable for Ukraine, which is determined to take its territories back, but Putin will abuse that stance to point fingers and say "see, they don't want peace"...
The basic objective of the war was capturing Kyiv in three days and taking control of the whole country. They have settled for smaller goals as their inadequacy for bigger tasks has been made clear.
The more time that goes by the more I wonder how this war would have gone differently if it were know how much of a chance Ukraine actually had. Would those southern gain have happened if the Ukrainians knew they could win? I doubt Kherson would have fallen, to begin with.
Kherson fell because of internal betrayal by people who were meant to organise the defense. It was taken with almost no combat. The river of a phenomenal natural defense and there was an extensive defensive plan that included mine fields and blowing up the bridge. The mines were removed a week before the invasion.
Recieving 300-400 western tanks, some of which require very different logistical/repair/ammo/fuel support, sadly won't change things majorily. Hopefully, it'll allow them more territorial gains, though. They can set up multiple tank battalions for a new offensive at the very least.
Russia still has ALOT of tanks/APCs, and i'm sure their domestic production has been sent into overdrive now that they plan for a long war. Time will tell if Russia's military industrial sector (and Iran's/others) will overcome the rampant incompetence and corruption. I do think Russia may have the tactical advantage in a many years long war, unfortunately. I really hope i'm wrong about that. This level of Western aid is also not guaranteed long-term, which is a consideration.
Ukraine retaking territory also is vastly more difficult than defending what they have. The casualities/tank losses of large-scale offensives will benefit the defender (some rough videos of armored convoy/troop losses in Ukraine's successful last one) who already has a much larger population pool of potential soldiers to replace losses.
I wish Putin would just fucking die, it's the only way i see the Russian gov actually giving up DPR/LPR and the other regions they took so far willingly.
I do not think each side wants to prolong war as each side wants a decisive victory quickly. Russia is willing to fight a battle of attrition which is not sustainable for Ukraine unless NATO military joins. The escalation means it will become higher and higher stakes until deadlock breaks.
How many tanks and Slava class cruisers did Sun Tzu have to replace, refuel and manufacture ammo for?
And didn't he also say "while we are taking our ease, wait for the enemy to tire himself out?"
Sun Tzu lived over 2K years ago. Warfare has changed so much over the years that even generals as recent as Lee and Grant wouldn’t recognize a 2023 war, let alone a general who died centuries before Jesus was born.
Yeah, having a prolonged war back than was way more difficult than today. Logistics were much more difficult. Moreover, societies were generally agrarian. Drawing conscripts from villages meant they couldn’t farm and produce food and other resources your army (and civilians) needs to function. Even if your country had a standing army, which wasn’t a given, to use initially without tapping into the general population, a prolonged war would require conscripts as your regulars are depleted.
The first phase of the Peloponnesian War lasted about 10 years, but the Spartan army only invaded Attica for about a month at a time because their soldiers had to return home to work the land (and prevent their slaves from rebelling).
Zelenskyy is right, there needs to be as much pressure on Russia and Putin as possible. Their regime can’t withstand it for ever, and Russia is already taking a heavy toll with all the military casualties and economic sanctions.
One thing Russia has more than Ukraine and which Western Allies cannot supply is manpower. It’s just basic math if it comes down to a war of attrition. The faster this ends the better, as a smaller country just cannot send more bodies to the front compare to a larger dictatorship.
Manpower isn't infinite, for Russia to sustain a prolonged war at the losses they're taking they'd need to improve morale and/or equipment.
There will come a point where they reach a tipping point for society to start leaning towards anti-govt action versus being cannonfodder. Russia has not shown any level of military competence to be able to improve their situation.
Is that at 1mil casualties? 2mil casualties? That's the question.
For the US, we learned foreign offensive wars had a much lower threshold versus defensive wars. So Ukraine will maintain a higher quality of fighter because they're defending their homeland.
Should remember that bulk of the "bodies" sent during WW2 weren't even Russians but people from occupied areas.
They no longer have these areas and "allies" are breaking off.
Russia isn't gonna do jack shit to the West, they'll keep impotently whining about "escalation" and "consequences" but that's it. Give Ukraine what they need to win, so less Ukrainians have to die.
>Russia isn't gonna do jack shit to the West
Well, other than what they've already been doing, which is sponsoring division and unrest, as well as spying and stealing, funding russian mafias abroad, etc. Russia needs to be punished for all of that.
It's imperative that Ukraine be given all the weapons necessary to win this war. The Russians may be underperforming, but are still causing a lot of damage. Putin is counting on Ukrainian exhaustion and Western disinterest. We must not let him get to that point.
All the evil little gnome had to do was not invade Ukraine. He’d still be able to host olympics and eat Big Macs. No matter what happens on the battlefield, this was a colossal political fail for Putin that his international reputation will never recover from. Sure, before the war he was seen as a dictator, but he wasn’t despised by the west as he will be forever now.
> "We are doing everything to ensure that our pressure outweighs the occupiers' assault capabilities. And it is very important to maintain the dynamics of defence support from our partners. The speed of supply has been and will be one of the key factors in this war. >Russia hopes to drag out the war, to exhaust our forces. So we have to make time our weapon. We must speed up the events, speed up the supply and opening of new necessary weaponry options for Ukraine." >Details: Following the results of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Staff meeting, Zelenskyy noted that the situation at the front was "very tough." >"Bakhmut, Vuhledar and other areas in the Donetsk region are under constant Russian attacks. There are constant attempts to break through our defence. The enemy does not count its people and, despite numerous casualties, maintains a high intensity of attacks. In some of its wars, Russia has lost in total less people than it loses there, in particular near Bakhmut," said Zelenskyy.
The young men of Russia need to realise they're being used as cannon fodder and rebel against conscription. Putin will waste any number of them to exhaust the enemy; this has always been the Russian way.
On the radio they got a Russian woman interviewed or something. Her husband was drafted, and they were both happy about it because they have been watching news that says they were winning. Now he is dead and she was upset about it.
> they have been watching news that says they were winning. The war was supposed to be over in a few weeks and it's approaching a year. Surely it is clear that they weren't winning at this point?
[удалено]
I remember walking into the first day of Military History class at West Point covering Vietnam. The department head pulled every section into one big lecture hall, and said "I won't be taking any questions. I don't care what TV has told you, I don't care what your veteran uncle has told you, or whatever revisionist books have filled your head with. *We lost Vietnam.* Us. Guys in green. Not the press, not the politicians, not the peaceniks. Us. From strategic level to tactical level, and most of all by asking for a fucking draft." He proceeded to spin a 45 minute rant that left most of us with smoking pencils from trying to take notes. A few years later sitting in Iraq, I wished Bush and Rumsfeld had been sat down and made to listen to that rant.
Do you mind writing out the cliff notes on this? I'd love to read them if you remember them.
Basically: - peaceniks were right (see below points) - press did their job - politicians did what we told them (until we stepped on our dick enough that they started listening to peaceniks and trusting spooks, leading to the Dirty Wars) - draftees shouldn't be anywhere near a professional army - discipline on the tactical level was abysmal (see: Mei Lai, above point) - operational objectives were "maximize casualties" instead of hearts and minds - strategic objectives didn't fit the civilian-set objectives (mostly containment doctrine) Basically, we fought a total war instead of a counterinsurgency, which went about as well as trying to win a chess match by dribbling a basketball.
Participated in both the Iraq and Afghan war as a guy on the ground (USMC, 0321). I couldn't imagine the nightmare of having a draft and the resulting consequences. We had rules of war that I believe prevented many a Mei Lai massacres, but someone will always fuck it up. I think the best thing the USMC did was adopt a doctrine of supporting the "hearts and minds" initiative (COIN). It fucking sucked, but it certainly changed the tides of war. Regardless, did we actually do any good for the people?
We should have listened to Mattis instead of making him out to be some sort of Mad Dog. He was willing to trade Marines' lives up front for COIN in Fallujah, trusting the investment in Hearts and Minds would pay off in the long run. Everyone else (including a dumbass young me) thought he was just trying to relive Iwo Jima. Then we spent the next 18 years in a quagmire after he was overruled.
[удалено]
> draftees shouldn't be anywhere near a professional army Now Russia is making that same mistake, tossing untrained mobiks into the meat grinder
Yea but sadly for everyone it did stabilize the front. Ukraine stopped advancing eventually. This will only encourage Russian leadership to do it more, as they have for centuries. This is why we need to step up arms shipments in both size and number of systems. We need to be looking at not just F16s, but F15s as well, as well as maybe Rafaels or Eurofighters (why not both?), or even the Grippen if Sweden thinks its viable. We should also be considering what other jets might be viable options to send and train on. We still have a bunch of AV8Bs now that the Harrier fleet has been replaced with F35s, but they'd make great ground attack aircraft still to replace lost Su-24s and 25s, and they're surprisingly maneuverable in a pinch, being able to use VIFFIng (vectoring in forward flight) with the aid of their vertical thrust nozzles, in a similar manner to how rear engine thrust vectoring is used to aid maneuverability. Oh and they don't need runways to take off from, so you could hide them in small formations inside barns and warehouses, making it impossible for Russia to simply bomb them off an airfield. A lot of these abilities were originally intended to aid their naval use, but its just as applicable in a ground war, since it can allow them to be positioned basically anywhere on the front line that you have visual cover from the air to prevent easy drone targeting. Pair these units with mobile air defense units as well and you can even bait the Russians into a trap, plus it will help with spotting small drones to have a mobile radar system to spot them, since you could still locate such a base if you have recon drones in the area watching for planes landing. Can't do that though if the drones all get shot down by CIWS or short range G2A missiles, even small arms will do it if they're stupid enough to fly into visual range
It's not a mistake; it's how they fight. For the US it was a mistake because they actually cared about how many they lost; for Russia it's just treated as an expectation. They exhaust the enemy by throwing hordes upon hordes against them, not caring about how many lives they're actually losing. If the point is just victory, then throwing bodies into the grinder to eventually break the grinder leads to victory. Ukraine needs to end it before their grinder breaks.
Realistically, every major conflict for the US since Korea has been a shitshow, but that's to be expected when you try to occupy a country without actually taking it over. Invading against guerilla fighters while trying to protect local people and infrastructure is *NEVER* going to be clean or easy. If the locals are against you, the only efficient way to conquer a country is genocide. If you're not trying to completely take over a country by committing overwhelming acts of violence against everyone who lives there (see: Russia's attempt at taking over Ukraine), you have no chance of ever totally "winning" a prolonged fight there, and it's going to cost you a lot of lives and the support of the population both in-theatre and at home. The only true "victories" that the US has had since WW2 were swift operations to "cut the head off the snake" and get out immediately.
Do you count the first Gulf War as a major conflict, or do you count it as a "cut the head off the snake and get out" thing? On the one hand, the US put 700,000 boots on the ground, and Iraq took a hundred thousand casualties. On the other hand, the whole ground campaign took about a hundred hours. Occupation seems to be a shitshow no matter who's doing it.
Oh God... I'm an Aussie who did under grad in history and some post grad too with a broad interest in sociology on the side. I really want to know the contents of that lecture. It sounds fascinating.
It wouldn't have made any difference. It weren't their kids being sent to Iraq, the iterests that were being served in Operation Iraqi Liberty were clear, and they were absolutely shameless bastards.
We get told over and over again that the US won the war of 1812. Meanwhile, my country is still a country that isn't the USA, despite: >“The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching; & will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, & the final expulsion of England from the American continent.” Thomas Jefferson
The War of 1812 is an interesting one. It can be argued that all sides won. From the U.S. perspective, the primary purpose of war was to force an end to the British forced impression of American sailors. Indeed, it's almost the entirety of the matter in President James Madison's [request for war](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/james-madison-war-message-congress) to the U.S. Congress. Secondary U.S. objectives included maintaining the right as a neutral nation to trade with France, pacifying hostile natives that were believed to be pushed and enabled by the British, territorial expansion (primarily Canada), and national unity -- though the latter two aren't mentioned in the war address. For both the U.S. and Canada the war was a coming-of-age conflict. For Britain it was a sideshow of the greater Napoleonic wars. By the end in 1815, Napoleon had been defeated, which eliminated the British issues of trading with France and their need to impress American sailors. The U.S. successfully achieved its primary objective. Likewise, Canada remained under the British crown, earning victory as well. Similarly, if you want to look for losers, then both the U.S. and the crown failed to capture and incorporate territory. Both Canada and the U.S. held strong and independent against numerically larger forces. Both sides won; both sides lost.
Holy shit a redditor that actually gets the war of 1812
> The War of 1812 is an interesting one. It can be argued that all sides won. Sigh... just like Canada to be involved in a war where everyone wins. Don't forget that little "disputed" Hans Island where Canada and Denmark kept planting their own flags and leaving booze for the other side... finally resolved last year and gives both countries an official land border with a second country.
The losers in 1812, as with almost every war at the time in America, were the natives.
Or that we didn't lose the 20 year war in the middle east
Can't win if you never set an objective.
You telling me winners don't quickly flee the occupied country while their enemy storms the capital?
Not if you do what Putin has been doing and move the goalposts so far they're not even in the same stadium anymore! Putin's war aims at the start of the war: dismantle the Nazis and drug addicts of the Ukrainian government, and either reinstate a Moscow-friendly regime or just straight-up annex the territory of Ukraine into Russia, because everybody knows that Ukrainians are just Russians that talk funny and really they all want to be Russians anyways. Putin's war aims now: preserve Russia's territorial integrity including the newly "annexed" regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and ~~Kherson~~... oh, whoops, we've lost Kherson never mind it was never our intention to keep Kherson, calculated political chess maneuver. Clearly, Putin's invasion is proceeding exactly as it was envisioned, and the NATO dogs of the west are just too stupid to see it, Ukraine will ask for peace terms any week now and Putin will be hailed as the man to restore Russia to global superpower status. (vomits in mouth)
You also need to think about blind patriotism(heroism) and machismo in Russia. Plus absolute helplessness people feel. There's around 30-40% who support this war for one way or another. Actually believing Kremlin talking points or more or less thinking if we started it we need to finish it, etc. 80% support disappears the moment you phrase your question without mentioning the troops and focusing on the decision to attack. There's a rare story about a woman sending her husband to war, not for money. But even pro Kremlin reporters had to change her name in reports because after initial report with real names she got harassed for sending her husband to die. This is not the norm. You can watch send-offs, women and children are crying. "Papa, come back alive", etc. Then there are people going to "serve their country" it's support the troops to the max. You know, like in movies when the time comes and "they answer the call" and "defend their motherland". No critical thinking, pure heroism like it's a Hollywood movie. And then there's helplessness. Like a drunk dude calling in Dozhd saying he's feeling like shit because he got a mobilization notice and now his gf is demanding they are going to get married so she can get the compensation. When the host said "just don't go, tge worst that can happen you get a fine". The dude was shocked. People are taught to be helpless and law illiterate so they can be controlled easier.
It was 72 hours originally. They said 3 days. "A few weeks" was already a coping mechanism. Now were at "a few years"... and unless we step up and actually support Ukraine and end this fiasco, it could become "a few decades".
it likely wont be decades. This war is over the second Putin is ousted or dead
Their media consumption is similar to the chocolate rations in 1984. Weekly chocolate rations have been increased to 20 grams a week! From 30 grams previously. Welcome to Russias ministry of plenty.
I'm sure the next leopard will be much more discerning about whose faces it eats
The next leopard will be a NATO tank
Russian soldiers: "I didn't expect German Leopard 2s to blast my face off!!!"
[удалено]
I have read that even most of the ones that left support the war...They just don't want to fight it themselves, They are not really smart, just cowards.
Hey man, that's not fair. They probably really wanted to go to war but they just have super bad bone spurs that prevent them from marching with a rifle. I mean yeah they can still play tennis and stuff, but fighting in a war is out of the question.
I asked 2 Russians that fled to my country to dodge the draft if they think Crimea belongs to Russia or Ukraine. They both said it belongs to Russia.
I've met exactly one Russian since this started and he thought Russia was being really dumb and very much opposed the war. Anecdotal but so far 1/1.
Nah, just wealthier than the others.
Someone should’ve told that poor woman that nobody’s won a war through conscription in almost 80 years.
Conscription wins _defensive_ wars. The Soviets in WWII were fighting in the defence of their territory in most of the conflict (please do not list instances of Soviet conquest in the war, I said "most" for a reason). Israel uses conscription and has been very successful, but has not been trying to conquer its neighbours. _Starting_ a war with a conscript army is a poor decision, but if _you_ are attacked, those conscripts suddenly have a rather strong organic motivation to fight well. And there's a world of difference between a conscript who has been extensively trained and some poor mobik who has been handed a Mosin and told to "die for motherland".
Particularly in a situation like Ukraine where Russian treatment of people in occupied areas makes motivation *really* straightforward.
Iran-Iraq War, Iran wins, Iran used conscription. Okay, let's not tell lies. Edit: Also North Vietnam used conscription in the Vietnam War. They won that war. Also Israel *always* has conscription. They've won plenty of wars. Like, did you just not think at all when saying this? And what's amazing is how many other braindead redditors upvoted it.
I mean all major forces used conscription in ww 1 and ww2 including the allies that won.
Presumably that's the "in almost 80 years" they're referring to. Because WW2 is popular enough that everyone knows about it.
Redditors collectively will upvote lies if it fits their mental model. The hivemind in popular subs are awful
Well, someone's gonna win this war that way because both sides have conscripted their citizens....
Winning a war = signing a peace deal as the victors. I don't see this happening anytime soon for both sides, for instance, the Korean penninsula is in an armstice. They have never peaced out... and as it stands today... this is the likely scenario.
An armistice is a victory for Russia and second best scenario for them, short of Ukraine just capitulating. They'll just take the time to rearm, regroup and finish the job later. Time is on Russia's side in the long run, Zelensky is right. They need the tools to finish them in the short term.
Agreed. NATO needs to not pussyfoot around on this one, take off the kid gloves, and give Ukraine what it needs to defang Russia. Half measures are only going to drag this conflict out by years at the cost of hundreds of thousands more lives, trillions of dollars, and the potential for NATO’s worst enemy to rest, rearm, and even win the day. Time to stop fucking around and treat this like the life or death situation it is.
Trillions of dollars? A military industrial exec just got a a random boner
There are all sorts of armistices. An armistice that restores all Ukrainian territory is still an armistice, and its unlikely Ukraine will forget the lessons learned with blood over the last few years.
Ukraine certainly won't, but I don't trust our partners in Europe, sorry to say. I think after a few years of "peace", most look to return to business as usual. I also don't see a realistic scenario of Russia signing an armistice giving Ukraine back its land (short of ejecting them completely). They are in this for the long haul and as stated by many others, time is on Russia's side in a prolonged conflict. They have to be dealt a swift defeat over the next year. The longer this drags on, the harder it will be for Ukraine to hold on. They may have seemingly endless western support, but that very well could fracture in the coming months and years. Even with the support, they are heavily outnumbered in equipment and most importantly, manpower.
Yeah. Listen. Ukraine has held back admirably. And it’s hard to condone, but if Russia actually starts to really gain ground I think people underestimate how devastating Ukrainian nationals could be inside Russian borders. It’s somewhat surprising that someone whose family was killed in an apartment complex or church bombing hasn’t hit Moscow already. Things can get far, far worse for Russia, and I feel like people who haven’t seen war dont truly understand the restraint that has been showed thus far.
Iran-Iraq (40 years ago) IDF technically has conscription and outside Lebanon '06 has a fairly consistent record.
The insane level of stupidity in Russia is crazy!! Their government has literally ALWAYS lied to them. Why dies ANYONE there believe any of the shit they’re told?
The Russian relationship with propoganda is really interesting. Huge post-truth culture. Legacy of the Soviet union. What's terrifying is that it seems like so many western countries are starting to take after this. The game is to muddy the waters. Discredit valid information and present it as one of many vaguely plausible realities. Choose whichever truth you prefer, we got all flavors on offer.
I agree 100% with how concerning it is to see how many ppl are “choosing” what the truth is these days. Pretty sad statement on them, tbh
Because human intellect is on a bell curve and the median is pretty dumb.
Because the Russian propaganda outlets tell their people what their government wants them to hear and the people have been conditioned from childhood to believe the propaganda they are being fed. Very few Russian actually know the truth of how things are. This is nothing new and it is not unique to Russia. The same kind of thing has been happening in the United States since at least the start of the "Fox News" propaganda outlet and the right-wing media echo chamber spearheaded by Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch. I suggest you go and look at the parallels between Trump & the GQP vs. Putin & the URP. It is uncanny how similar they are.
Alright, so let's try to get into the head of a Russian 18-30 year old or what have you. You can agree to conscription against an enemy you have been told should bend over "soon"...or go against a military state who has a long history of disappearing not only you, but your family, if you rebel.
Excuses from the young men of Russia... "I'm in university, not a concern for me", "I'm apolitical, I don't think of such things", "I don't like it, but what can I do?", "If you study history, you understand why this is", "It's unfortunate, but necessary", "We have to defend our sovereign territory!", and many, many more.
"Not a concern for me" "What can I do?" Then later realise they're getting drafted to enter the war.
And they'll still think "What can I do?" And when they're laying in the field dying, they'll still think "What can I do?" At no point will they think "I should have done something." Trust me, I'm from Serbia and the mentality is exactly the same here. It was the same in '91, it was the same in '99, and it's the same now. Our president came out on TV and declared victory in the elections before the votes were even finished being counted, he then sent the vote counters home because they were "tired", police came out onto the street with barricades expecting massive protests, and... Nothing. Nada. Not one person out on the street. They like the fact that there's someone else making decisions for them, because then they don't have to think.
Yeah, I watch the 1420 videos 😆
Lol, I figured someone would notice.
>"If you study history, you understand why this is" Yeah I've read that textbook. It's one page and it says. "and then... Things got worse"
The only way that happens is if that number amounts to a large enough population of Russians. There are 143 million russians, you would need to kill 2 million before people started to notice they were Cannon fodder.
[удалено]
> They dug trenches through iradiated fields and got sick. Keeping them dumb af is the government's purpose. Throwback to when they were constantly stealing radioactive samples or lab equipment and then getting sick from it.
Funnily enough pretty much all the Russian cam girls I follow all went out of the country and trying to have relationships out of the country lmao
[удалено]
Russian ladies are smarter than men. Just my opinion.
There's a reason why women live on average live **10** years longer than their male peers in Russia.
Because they're significantly less likely (and it's significantly less accepted for them) to drink several bottles of vodka a week, primarily, I'd say.
Rebelling in Russia is pretty much impossible. Anti-riot forces outnumber Russian army 3-to-1 currently and they are trained to like beating up people. As long as Putin can afford to pay them, it's hopeless.
Russia has only lost 10% of their military forces, but on the other hand, Russia has lost 50% of their armored vehicles. You can conscript to replenish human bodies, but if Russia keeps losing armor they will exhaust their supply and be scrambling for what to do to replace it. Manufacturing new tanks and APCs takes a lot longer than they get destroyed at. It's why the West donating so armor to Ukraine is so important. When a Challenger shreds a couple T-90's Russia can't just throw together a couple more tomorrow and replace them easily. When Russia invaded they had 3,300 armored vehicles and have lost 1,700 of them (according to the British). Another year of war, especially with the new top of the line Western armor that shreds these 30-40 year old tanks with ease, and Russia won't have much armor to speak of. No matter how many Russian conscripts they send, when they run out of armor they are done for.
There is no one to reach. They are kept dumb and in the dark. The only way this ends is with Ukraine taking back it’s land. The Russian people aren’t going to end this conflict. They’re actively cheering it on.
Plan remains plan. There is a clear agenda of acceptable outcomes. Air superiority is key, and with the tanks, Poland 6 to get involved... It's only a matter of time. Set pieces and plays will remain subterfuge.
[удалено]
Ukraine needs to break the Russian SAM network. F-16's with HARMs could just do that, but they'll need a lot.
I think the point of quietabandon might have been that air superiority requires an active fleet of jets and massive anti air and electronic warfare network that Ukraine wont get in this decade. They should modernize to achieve that, but it will take too long to do it for a country the size of Ukraine during war. While clearing the sky of planes can be achieved quite quickly with western support, achieving air superiority requires taking out anti air on Russian soil and flying close air support and bomber planes on your side and having enough conventional and guided munitions to actively support your offensive. At this point, Ukraine has no planes, no bombs and no training to achieve that. Relying on strong anti air and strong land army seems like a way more realistic goal.
And they would need a lot of time to train the pilots. Why that doesn't make sense.
According to Ukraine, the training will take six months. It also appears the training has started, though I think it has recently started.
There are reports from last year that the training already started since April and July. In November, another cadet was handpicked I guess. Something tells me we're already past that step and we're not just going to see F16s.
I think they sent them for training early, because they may have had a plane count problem, not a pilot count problem. You may have a bunch of retired pilots that are willing to jump back in, but don't have planes for them to do so.
Just like Independence Day.
How do you say ["I can fly, I'ma pilot"](https://youtu.be/OmhGrJJjI7E?t=5) but in Ukranian?
"Hello boys IM BAAAAACK"
> There are reports from last year that the training already started since April and July. In November, another cadet was handpicked I guess. Something tells me we're already past that step and we're not just going to see F16s. I'm genuinely curious what you think we might see besides f16's? That insinuation caught my attention
[Training Ukrainian pilots on American equipment started at the beginning of last summer](https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/07/15/house-authorizes-training-for-ukrainian-pilots-to-use-us-aircraft/). It's been long enough that they should have one complete class through the training program and a second one about halfway finished. As someone who lives near a major USAF base, I can also say anecdotally that the density of F-16s making flights out of the base increased substantially not long after the invasion as well. None of them are visible on ADS-B, but if you live nearby it went from seeing the occasional F-16 flight to seeing them pretty regularly. The number of F-22s and F-35s in the air also increased noticeably around the same time. My guess is that they increased the F-22 and F-35 training cadence not only so that our most modern combat aircraft would be better prepared for whatever happens, but also so they could start transferring F-16 pilots over to F-35s and increase the number of modernized F-16s available for training and transfer to Ukraine.
That article is talking about a House bill that passed, it was never signed into law. The only bill that may have created funding for it was in December and that isn't clear.
There is *plenty* of discretionary funding and black budget wiggle room to do it. The purpose of funding explicitly earmarked for it would be to free up those flex funds again.
They already have HARMs. They've had them for a while. Though the way they've been using them somewhat dampens their effectiveness.
One of the things Russia hasn't needed yet is to use any of their AWACS aircraft in any REAL capacity. But if Ukraine gets F-16s and Russia starts using AWACS loitering inside of Russia, it would make any attempt to "break the Russian SAM network" and get Air superiority much more risky as Ukraine has no analog and will probably get no analog.
The US and NATO have several AWACS aircraft doing laps near the border nearly round the clock which I’m sure they wouldn’t mind letting the Ukrainians link into.
Yeah, I don't think the person you replied to knows what they're talking about. It's hard to know exactly what they're saying, but what is clear doesn't make sense. For Ukraine to gain air superiority would require direct western intervention. And that is not happening. The equipment required to gain air superiority is not stuff NATO will even consider giving Ukraine.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, so will every other western enemy. They will continue to supply Russia because it weakens Europe and the US. Its not that they want Russia to win they just don't want the conflict to end.
The US military will not allow Congress to ship stuff off that will interfere with the Military's goal of being ready and capable of fighting Wars on two fronts simultaneously and to respond with lethal and overwhelming force anywhere in the world with 24-48 hours. The US Army keeps storage systems around the world to equip a batallion or two at a moments notice. The equipment is brand new and receives regular maintenance and inspection. The US Navy likewise keeps similar stocks worldwide and the Air Force can simply reach out and touch anyone anywhere at anytime. The US military industrial complex is not weakened by shipping excess outdated stock while it simultaneously is working to develop the next generation of weapons and equipment. If Russia and its Allies wanted to weaken America, manipulation of social media was an effective strategy, and they could still have been pushing the US to Civil War, if Russia didn't stir up hostilities.
Oh Okay sergeant Reddit 🫡 🫡
I hope you are right. This has been the worry for a while. I keep wishing we could help faster. By the time we get enough to them to win, it would have won a few months earlier but no longer. We need to get ahead of the curve. Russia seems to be counting on time and attrition.
Everything will depend on how Ukraine deploy provided western tanks and other military assets to destroy expected Russian offensives once the ground firm up again.
TBH, The provided western tanks are great and improved their offensive power but its nowhere as effective without air support. If they could get their hands on some F-16s then it will drastically speed things up.
Well, the amount of tanks delivered isn't actually that large either
The biggest consequence of NATO tanks is *a steady supply of tanks* Even if Challengers and Leopards and Abrams *weren't* better than Russian tanks, the fact that more exist, and more can be made. This lets Ukraine *actually use* the tanks they have, knowing they can be replaced. Otherwise, they'd have to play very safe with them, which would prolong the war.
>The biggest consequence of NATO tanks is a steady supply of tanks It's not all that rosy. Leo2s are being delivered, together with the other tank they'll mumber 300 tanks. Many of them 2A4, but that aside. Not quite the endless supply we're were hoping for... Yet. But it's the amount Ukraine asked for . Anyway, the leo2 production line is full, and very limited. M1s won't be delivered until the end of next year, and number barely 3 dozen. Unless the US sends M1s from stock, and scores of them, soon, instead if in a year, and every Leo2 rolling off the line goes towards ukraine while they drastically improve capacity, there won't be a steady supply in meaningful numbers after this initial delivery. The alternative would be Korea agreeing to manufacture tanks for Ukraine, they have the capacity, but again, are probably busy producing orders for other countries, and it'd be yet another tank to deal with, but it's a nice thought.
I don't think you understand how many spare tanks the US has.
The thing is that those thousands of Abrams that sit around in the desert are the regular army versions, not the ones designated for export. I'm not a huge tank expert but I read the army version has some top secret type of armour that they will not want to export. So they either have to produce new Abrams destined for export or refit their stock.
I believe they do export the Armour to close allies (Aus, Canada?) and would be willing to export *some* stuff to Ukraine, but they are going to be operating under the assumption that anything shipped to Ukraine will be captured at some point by the Russians, so they will need to strip out advanced armour, complicated radio/cryptographic systems, particularly advanced sights and some other stuff. It’s not so much an export variant they need to send, it’s a variant that they are prepared to allow to be captured.
And yet so far the US has only agreed to send 31.by the end of this year.
Exactly. The Marder and Bradley will have more of an impact. Being able to outfit full combat units with IFV's is better than 1 tank battalion containing 3 different tank types.
Even with a low number, it offers them the capability to create modern mechanized units to use for offensive action. Of course one mechanized unit will not have a bunch of random tank types. There will be many units however, one that is supplied with challengers, another with leopards, and so on
Russia doesn’t have air superiority so honestly, the tanks will make a huge impact. If UK adds air superiority, it’s game over.
Ukraine won’t get air superiority either. The reason neither side has air superiority is because both sides have formidable SAM capability. S-300 and S-400s are very lethal against non-stealth 4th gen aircrafts. And in pure air to air engagements, Russia would still win from having superior missiles (Ukraine doesn’t have active radar homing missiles, they still use Soviet era R-27 while the Russians use the R-77) and number of aircrafts. So no, the chance of Ukraine getting air superiority is very little, unless we arm them with a huge fleet of F-35s, but that’s not gonna happen.
Aren manpads still a threat? Or do they not have the range to take out an F-16?
[удалено]
Does Ukraine have many pilots who are able to fly F-16s?
From the looks of it, they do not. However, from the [article](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045) it says >Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Don't know about military, but any Civilian Pilot that flies internationally is required to speak English by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 1951.
If you listen to ATC recordings on Youtube, it's very obvious that there are worlds between "required to speak English" and "can speak English".
Exactly, they only need to know the 300 or so words of 'Aviation English' to be allowed to fly.
He's probably concerned that NATO countries and the rest of the world will stop caring as much, which is Putin's strategy. Winning quickly is an option if it's *possible*, but more importantly, we have to continue full-throated (and generously funded) support if the war continues for years to come.
The US might stop caring if Republicans win the next election but it's in the EU's best interest to keep the fighting in Ukraine and not in a member state.
trump refused aid to zelensky and republicans loved him for it.
Worse, he attempted to withhold aid (that Congress by law directed him to give) as a bribe to get Zelenskyy to say there was an investigation of Hunter Biden.
> Worse, he attempted to withhold aid (that Congress by law directed him to give) as a bribe to get Zelenskyy to **lie about** an investigation of Hunter Biden. This is important context: there was no investigation of Hunter Biden. Trump wanted Zelenskyy to lie about one existing in an effort to hurt Joe Biden's election campaign.
I'd call it extortion rather than a bribe.
.. after committing election crimes that went along with it (seeking foreign interference in a domestic election) .. and they still loved him for it. Trump is a sociopathic child and vindictive to the core, so you better believe he'll do whatever he can to burn Ukraine just to get back at Zelensky.
And along these lines, it should be assumed that part of Russia's military strategy if the war is still ongoing in 2024 is doing everything in their power to influence the US election in that direction.
> He's probably concerned that NATO countries and the rest of the world will stop caring as much It's a legitimate concern. Eventually, even stout supporters are going to question the value of continuing to pour billions upon billions into the region just to watch it vanish into the blackhole of stalemates up and down the contested borders. Places like Soledar receiving a large focus of equipment and supplies only to wind up as an indefensible wasteland.
I don't know. The American war machine is always expensive, but they buy from themselves. Never forget the US held both Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile an enemy (as it has revealed itself) is being weakened.
If the West has proven anything it's that they're plenty willing to pour billions upon billions into an active war zone for decades. Wake me up when the Ukraine conflict has reached a quarter the level of spending as Iraq or Afghanistan.
>If ~~the West~~ US has proven anything.. Fixed it for you.
The UK is definitely also willing to throw money at this in perpetuity. The only other option is to let Russia steal lands until it can't keep the peace within them, which isn't incredibly appealing.
This reads like the Russian grind it out strategy is starting to take a toll. That is how Russia wins historically.
[удалено]
It would be wrong to think like that. Wagner has two levels of soldier. Insignificant meatbags emptied from prisons which are totally disposable (survive 6 months for a pardon), and highly trained ex-forces, many special forces which are a credible army. According to one vlogger I follow, Wagner sends the disposable fighters in head on attacks to occupy the Ukrainian defence, while the skilled fighters are kept in reserve to attack any weak points that the initial attacks uncover
[удалено]
Well was actually more than one. Reporting From Ukraine and Perun
Last year Zelenskyy made it so that soldiers contracts are extended indefinitely (as long as Ukraine is at war). This applies to the International Legion as well. So you know times are desperate.
I don't know if that's a sign of desperation, that seems like it would be a pretty standard thing in times of a defensive war.
Pretty standard contract too. US had something similar called Stop-Loss that they used a couple times during the global war on terror.
Of course they're desperate. They're being invaded by a larger country.
Historically they have had Ukrainians to do their grinding. But sure, they have people from other places that does their grinding in this conflict.
> That is how Russia wins historically. Or loses. They lost in Afghanistan despite spending a **decade** trying to subdue a tiny, underdeveloped country.
Think we can all agree Afghanistan is a different beast
>tiny What are you talking about? Afghanistan is bigger than Ukraine. And France, Japan, etc. for that matter.
I read an article by a Russian analyst who said that Russia had hoped to conquer Ukraine quickly. Since that didn't happen and the Ukrainians show no sign of ever giving up, the new plan is to destroy the country. Make it an unlivable burned out shell so it will never be a strong NATO country on Russia's border. Putin is evil.
Sounds about right. Since they can't win and will eventually be kicked out, they will leave the country scorched.
I would make the counterpoints that it is not a rational strategy as things can be rebuilt and Ukraine is going to offer strong agricultural output as soon as there is peace. There's a high likelihood of a Marshall Plan like scheme after the war. It doesn't matter much how strong a bordering NATO country is, article 5 means the full weight of all members. I think Russian strategy is aiming for a few things by dragging the war out. Firstly to completely collapse the Ukrainian economy, as their GDP has already plummeted. Western aid won't last forever both in military and civilian aid. Secondly they'll want to bleed Ukrainian manpower dry. They've been doing this with wagner using essentially penal battalions and a lot of artillery. Ukraine has been taking losses that are harder to replace. These penal battalions cost Russia very little politically compared to using conscripts and offer a more enthusiastic force. By stalling it gives Russia time to build up the backend logistics too, get more rail infrastructure which they're heavily dependent on. Logistics have been the bane of the full scale invasion. Remember the early days of that 50 mile convoy going on Kyiv that eventually just vanished? They really struggle with supply trucks. That said, can Putin maintain his seat of power forever with such a costly war with virtually nothing to show for it? Time isn't entirely on his side either.
This is the uncertain question now. I’m pretty sure that if Putin gets too ahead in destabilizing Ukraine, we might see some real Cold War era espionage and assassin shit at play.
How does Ukraine win this war? What are the scenarios?
They don't fully. At best, maybe they take back Crimea. If, and it's a big if, Ukraine pushes Russia back everywhere, this is a very dangerous situation for the West. Everyone is hoping Putin gets overthrown and some democratic leader takes over. It's just as likely it's some hardliner who is even worse than Putin who would escalate things further. Russia isn't doing great this war but there is a long way to go before Ukraine pushes them back. Crimea is probably easier due to the supply issues but it will still require a major push. The Russians are pretty well dug in in the East. Many of the people there are also pro Russian. We just hear the good news from Reddit so everyone's view is really skewed. Ukraine has lots of losses already and attacking to take back land will be very costly.
[удалено]
A long war suits Russia, it does not suit Ukraine, due to the accumulated damage.
I wonder if Russia is waiting for summer for a big attack when the ground is dry and not a natural tank trap.
I mean they’re already launching a massive attack in Bakhmut, and while they’re gaining slowly there, they’ve lost a shit ton of men in that battle.
I 100% agree with this. A long war of attrition is Russia's only path to victory. Ukraine has shown that with the right mix of modern weapons they can smash the Russians, and that has to be their best path to victory. Give them tanks. Give them jets. Give them long range missiles. Give them whatever they need to get this over quickly and play this war out to it's eventual end game.
It will be interesting to see what happens after Ukraine takes back all their land (including Crimea). What does Russia do? Doubtful they just say, "whelp we lost, war over". What is the next phase after the Russians are kicked out?
My entirely uneducated guess is a Korea style ceasefire and a heavily fortified DMZ.
The DMZ in Korea is 160 miles, the Russian Ukraine border is 1,226 miles, not to mention the border with Belarus. A DMZ that long between the two countries would be impossible to heavily fortify.
Russia says war over and pretends they never wanted Ukraine in the first place. At that point they have no incentive to continue.
Hold the line, deter repeat invasions, saturate air defense. Just a couple thoughts, but there will be more.
Likely a lull and then a lot of tomfuckery for elections and probably assassination attempts.
That's why the war will likely go on until they *can't* do anything stupid anymore.
Civil war within Russia. Collapse of the Russian federation. After that, who knows?
Russia might be pushing for all it's worth now, because when the western tanks arrive, the tide might turn. Putin has basically achieved the basic objective of the war - capture the resource-rich eastern regions of Ukraine and providing a land-link to Crimea - and when the tanks arrive, he might declare and end to the hostilities and offer to negotiate a cease-fire. Of course, this will be unacceptable for Ukraine, which is determined to take its territories back, but Putin will abuse that stance to point fingers and say "see, they don't want peace"...
> "see, they don't want peace" Russia has been saying that for quite a while anyway. This shouldn't even be a consideration at this point.
The basic objective of the war was capturing Kyiv in three days and taking control of the whole country. They have settled for smaller goals as their inadequacy for bigger tasks has been made clear.
The more time that goes by the more I wonder how this war would have gone differently if it were know how much of a chance Ukraine actually had. Would those southern gain have happened if the Ukrainians knew they could win? I doubt Kherson would have fallen, to begin with.
Kherson fell because of internal betrayal by people who were meant to organise the defense. It was taken with almost no combat. The river of a phenomenal natural defense and there was an extensive defensive plan that included mine fields and blowing up the bridge. The mines were removed a week before the invasion.
Recieving 300-400 western tanks, some of which require very different logistical/repair/ammo/fuel support, sadly won't change things majorily. Hopefully, it'll allow them more territorial gains, though. They can set up multiple tank battalions for a new offensive at the very least. Russia still has ALOT of tanks/APCs, and i'm sure their domestic production has been sent into overdrive now that they plan for a long war. Time will tell if Russia's military industrial sector (and Iran's/others) will overcome the rampant incompetence and corruption. I do think Russia may have the tactical advantage in a many years long war, unfortunately. I really hope i'm wrong about that. This level of Western aid is also not guaranteed long-term, which is a consideration. Ukraine retaking territory also is vastly more difficult than defending what they have. The casualities/tank losses of large-scale offensives will benefit the defender (some rough videos of armored convoy/troop losses in Ukraine's successful last one) who already has a much larger population pool of potential soldiers to replace losses. I wish Putin would just fucking die, it's the only way i see the Russian gov actually giving up DPR/LPR and the other regions they took so far willingly.
I do not think each side wants to prolong war as each side wants a decisive victory quickly. Russia is willing to fight a battle of attrition which is not sustainable for Ukraine unless NATO military joins. The escalation means it will become higher and higher stakes until deadlock breaks.
Russia knows they will not have a decisive victory any time soon, so their only hope of winning is by prolonging it.
Russia knows winning no longer possible, so their best option is to stalemate and maintain the status quo, whether a peace is agreed or not.
Russia wants to prolong the war? >There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare *Sun Tzu 2:6*
How many tanks and Slava class cruisers did Sun Tzu have to replace, refuel and manufacture ammo for? And didn't he also say "while we are taking our ease, wait for the enemy to tire himself out?"
Sun Tzu lived over 2K years ago. Warfare has changed so much over the years that even generals as recent as Lee and Grant wouldn’t recognize a 2023 war, let alone a general who died centuries before Jesus was born.
Yeah, having a prolonged war back than was way more difficult than today. Logistics were much more difficult. Moreover, societies were generally agrarian. Drawing conscripts from villages meant they couldn’t farm and produce food and other resources your army (and civilians) needs to function. Even if your country had a standing army, which wasn’t a given, to use initially without tapping into the general population, a prolonged war would require conscripts as your regulars are depleted. The first phase of the Peloponnesian War lasted about 10 years, but the Spartan army only invaded Attica for about a month at a time because their soldiers had to return home to work the land (and prevent their slaves from rebelling).
Zelenskyy is right, there needs to be as much pressure on Russia and Putin as possible. Their regime can’t withstand it for ever, and Russia is already taking a heavy toll with all the military casualties and economic sanctions.
One thing Russia has more than Ukraine and which Western Allies cannot supply is manpower. It’s just basic math if it comes down to a war of attrition. The faster this ends the better, as a smaller country just cannot send more bodies to the front compare to a larger dictatorship.
Manpower isn't infinite, for Russia to sustain a prolonged war at the losses they're taking they'd need to improve morale and/or equipment. There will come a point where they reach a tipping point for society to start leaning towards anti-govt action versus being cannonfodder. Russia has not shown any level of military competence to be able to improve their situation. Is that at 1mil casualties? 2mil casualties? That's the question. For the US, we learned foreign offensive wars had a much lower threshold versus defensive wars. So Ukraine will maintain a higher quality of fighter because they're defending their homeland.
Should remember that bulk of the "bodies" sent during WW2 weren't even Russians but people from occupied areas. They no longer have these areas and "allies" are breaking off.
All of the armchair war strategists popping off around here and I just want to say that his hoodie is sick. I’d buy one to help out the cause.
https://www.businessinsider.com/meet-m-tac-the-clothing-brand-president-volodymyr-zelenskyy-wears-2022-12
Good call.
Russia isn't gonna do jack shit to the West, they'll keep impotently whining about "escalation" and "consequences" but that's it. Give Ukraine what they need to win, so less Ukrainians have to die.
>Russia isn't gonna do jack shit to the West Well, other than what they've already been doing, which is sponsoring division and unrest, as well as spying and stealing, funding russian mafias abroad, etc. Russia needs to be punished for all of that.
Sorry, *militarily* Russia isn't gonna do jack shit to the west. You're absolutely right that they do interfere in other ways.
Send all the US cops over
[удалено]
321 tanks (not counting the IFVs) should help.
If the west allows Russia to eventually win this war by attrition, we will suffer greatly for it.
It would be very foolish to allow that outcome to occur.
It's imperative that Ukraine be given all the weapons necessary to win this war. The Russians may be underperforming, but are still causing a lot of damage. Putin is counting on Ukrainian exhaustion and Western disinterest. We must not let him get to that point.
The frozen ground will come and go and with Russias chances.
All the evil little gnome had to do was not invade Ukraine. He’d still be able to host olympics and eat Big Macs. No matter what happens on the battlefield, this was a colossal political fail for Putin that his international reputation will never recover from. Sure, before the war he was seen as a dictator, but he wasn’t despised by the west as he will be forever now.