There's a lot of unjustified supposition in this comment. Where do you get the idea that the Russians are taking heavy casualties, disproportionate to objectives, poorly trained, and poorly equipped? Methinks you have been lapping up the media Kool-Aid. Few people understand what Putin is doing, so what does it mean when the ignorant don't expect to see what is happening?
I have read one insightful comment that has concluded that NATO (and by extension, the U.S.) are shitting in their pants, because their NATO-supplied and -trained protege' (Ukraine) is having its clock cleaned by the very Russians they supposed would be easy to stymie.
I watched a well made non-propaganda YT video that talked about how Russia has failed utterly to perform a proper air campaign. It explained how the US use wild weasel missions to break down enemy air defenses and destroy SAM sites. Russia did little of this. They have been operating under fire and taking loses. Mostly they just use long range missiles. Every time you hear about something important being blown up it wasn't from a bomb on a plane that flew over the target. It was a surface to surface missile or a long range cruise missile dropped from a plane 150+ km away. Why? Because while Ukraine isn't in control of the air space neither is Russia. That's not winning.
I've also seen plenty of video where Russian tanks are clearly being hit by missile and 90% of the time they do what you expect, the turret blows slap off because all the ammo goes off. That is a 3 man crew dead instantly. I've also seen several videos of Russian vehicles(SUV/Humvee type stuff) shot to shit and abandoned. Blood is all over the street, although the bodies are gone. So you think no one died?
No, its clear to me in the western MSM propaganda they highlight Russian casualties and skip over the Ukrainian ones. Its very likely that the rates are even 2 vs 1, meaning for every dead Russian there is two or even three(possibly more) dead Ukrainians but if you think the Russians are operating like the US did in Iraq were they lost like 500 men vs 100k dead Iraqs you need to ship me some of what your smoking because its some seriously good stuff. I don't normally do drugs but sounds like what you are smoking is too good to pass up.
Bottom line if Russia has killed 20k Ukrainians even at 3 to 1 that 6-7k dead Russians. How many blown up tanks/APCs? How many downed helicopters etc etc? Dozens? Maybe hundreds of tanks. I'm not saying Russia is getting its ass kicked. I'm saying they are having to actually fight and take casualties against a bunch of rednecks with good gear. Actual soldiers would be wtfpwning the Russians is the logical conclusion.
If Russia was a real fully equipped 1st world military like the US Army(at least used to be pre-Obama) the fight would already be over. Russia would have air superiority and would have bombed the Ukrainian military into dust. Instead they merely contest the airspace and are clearly taking significant casualties on the ground. The fact they are making progress and causing heavy casualties isn't surprising. Fighting NATO the same way would result in them running out of troops in a matter of weeks. Translation, they don't stand a chance in hell against even half of NATO being fully committed.
Just a quick reply. Russia has air superiority, at least enough to be able to use it at will, to operate Su-25s and their attack helicopters. They've wiped out the Ukrainian air force. UKR is putting airplanes aloft that have been patched together from storage. There is no "contest." Ukrainian air fields have been hit. The Ukrainians may operate something out of western Ukraine, but that's a long ways from where the action is. But why bother with aircraft when you have rocket barrage weapons of equal or better accuracy? They give much less warning to the target. And ground weapons can be integrated with ground-based intelligence to clue them in to the right targets. This is particularly necessary when fighting against an adversary that prefers human shield tactics. You have to shoot only where the shooting comes from.
Were they indeed Russian tanks, though? Was it even footage taken in Ukraine? (The UKRs have been known to substitute footage from Syria as being from Ukraine.) The Russians have admitted to losing maybe ~200 tanks, but have destroyed ~2,000 Ukrainian ones. Russian casualties were about 5,000-6,000 (~1500 dead) and their count of Ukrainian casualties was ~20,000 total (maybe 10,000 dead).
One Russian goal is the elimination of Ukrainian military combat capability, by destruction or surrender of forces, and destruction of fixed and mobile assets. They have a long list of weapons depots, ammo dumps, and fuel reserves that they have destroyed, including the 2 (or 3) fuel refineries in Ukraine. The UKR army has nothing to shoot, very little to move with, and no fuel with which to move. They are fixed in place. The Russians first pinned them down, and now the main battle will be an encirclement of the 60,000-man Ukrainian main force in the Donbass in a "cauldron," where they will be pounded into submission or destruction.
To the contrary, they are making child's play of a NATO protege' armed with NATO weapons and trained in NATO interoperability tactics, and this makes NATO nervous. I think it was Colonel Douglas MacGregor (who commanded a tank formation during Gulf War II) who praised this operation as being very skillfully planned and executed. They are placing more emphasis on attainment of goals than adherence to a schedule. Americans are too impatient, and they therefore misjudge what they are given to see (the news from Ukraine and the Western powers is all corrupt at the source).
The fact that both sides lie constantly makes it hard for us to know the truth.
The Ukrainians are clearly still firing SAMs at Russian planes/helo. Thus Russia doesn't control the airspace in any way. Control is not just about jets and runways.
None of this negates my original theory. The Ukrainians didn't have half the training US Army does. They also have VERY different equipment and strategy. Yes, Russia is winning the proxy fight but they shouldn't just be winning. It should be a total route with very few casualties. Instead the ATGMs MANPADs etc are proving very effective at creating casualties. US Army would also be using MLRS, 155mm, and other stuff that the Ukrainians lost in the first week through the whole fight. Throw is some F-22s and Russia just doesn't stand a chance. To think otherwise is foolish.
The only difference is Russia is good enough that it would create casualties on our side not seen sense Vietnam. They would still lose.
You are just assuming that both sides lie. Ukraine has been shown to be lying. There is no evidence that the Russians are lying, only a disparity between their numbers and Ukraine's numbers. To say that Western observers support the Ukraine numbers is only to say that the West, who created the Ukraine corruption swamp, has a vested interest in sticking to the narrative that they are helping to create.
In any case, the Russian casualties at last note were ~5,000 (~1,500 dead), while their count for Ukrainians, whose bodies they are collecting and counting in the field, is more on the order of ~20,000 (~10,000 dead). Essentially all the Ukrainian armor and aircraft are destroyed. Their ammo dumps and fuel depots are destroyed, so they are out of fires and mobility. The West throws in weapons and the Russians collect them as trophies off the field, unfired, abandoned by fleeing Ukrainians, and being remanded to the Donetsk forces for their armament. The Russians have no problem using their UAVs, Su-25s, and attack helicopters (beyond the reach of any Ukraine aircraft operating from western Ukraine). Currently, Russia has encircled ~60,000 Ukrainian troops in a "cauldron" where they will be attritted by artillery or desertions---until they surrender or are finally destroyed.
I think you are right, NATO is having kittens about Russian tactics and weaponry. The idea that Russia is a second rate military is nonsense, ever since we saw how they deployed their air force over Syria we knew that.
Their bombers did round the clock attacks with seemingly no aircraft maintenance downtime at all, that isn't anything we could do.
As for nukes? They don't need nukes, they have charge cluster/EVO weapons as we do, all they have to do is open up a few select geological faults and that's it. But as the Sniffer in Chief isn't boss of the US military at all Russia can only win.
I read the works of Viktor Suvorov on the subject of the Russian military. Very tough dudes. No margin for weaklings or the faint of heart. The Russians have an attitude about combat, and once you understand it, one respects it. Very pragmatic. Very realistic. Unsentimental, without being unfeeling.
There's a lot of unjustified supposition in this comment. Where do you get the idea that the Russians are taking heavy casualties, disproportionate to objectives, poorly trained, and poorly equipped? Methinks you have been lapping up the media Kool-Aid. Few people understand what Putin is doing, so what does it mean when the ignorant don't expect to see what is happening?
I have read one insightful comment that has concluded that NATO (and by extension, the U.S.) are shitting in their pants, because their NATO-supplied and -trained protege' (Ukraine) is having its clock cleaned by the very Russians they supposed would be easy to stymie.
I watched a well made non-propaganda YT video that talked about how Russia has failed utterly to perform a proper air campaign. It explained how the US use wild weasel missions to break down enemy air defenses and destroy SAM sites. Russia did little of this. They have been operating under fire and taking loses. Mostly they just use long range missiles. Every time you hear about something important being blown up it wasn't from a bomb on a plane that flew over the target. It was a surface to surface missile or a long range cruise missile dropped from a plane 150+ km away. Why? Because while Ukraine isn't in control of the air space neither is Russia. That's not winning.
I've also seen plenty of video where Russian tanks are clearly being hit by missile and 90% of the time they do what you expect, the turret blows slap off because all the ammo goes off. That is a 3 man crew dead instantly. I've also seen several videos of Russian vehicles(SUV/Humvee type stuff) shot to shit and abandoned. Blood is all over the street, although the bodies are gone. So you think no one died?
No, its clear to me in the western MSM propaganda they highlight Russian casualties and skip over the Ukrainian ones. Its very likely that the rates are even 2 vs 1, meaning for every dead Russian there is two or even three(possibly more) dead Ukrainians but if you think the Russians are operating like the US did in Iraq were they lost like 500 men vs 100k dead Iraqs you need to ship me some of what your smoking because its some seriously good stuff. I don't normally do drugs but sounds like what you are smoking is too good to pass up.
Bottom line if Russia has killed 20k Ukrainians even at 3 to 1 that 6-7k dead Russians. How many blown up tanks/APCs? How many downed helicopters etc etc? Dozens? Maybe hundreds of tanks. I'm not saying Russia is getting its ass kicked. I'm saying they are having to actually fight and take casualties against a bunch of rednecks with good gear. Actual soldiers would be wtfpwning the Russians is the logical conclusion.
If Russia was a real fully equipped 1st world military like the US Army(at least used to be pre-Obama) the fight would already be over. Russia would have air superiority and would have bombed the Ukrainian military into dust. Instead they merely contest the airspace and are clearly taking significant casualties on the ground. The fact they are making progress and causing heavy casualties isn't surprising. Fighting NATO the same way would result in them running out of troops in a matter of weeks. Translation, they don't stand a chance in hell against even half of NATO being fully committed.
Just a quick reply. Russia has air superiority, at least enough to be able to use it at will, to operate Su-25s and their attack helicopters. They've wiped out the Ukrainian air force. UKR is putting airplanes aloft that have been patched together from storage. There is no "contest." Ukrainian air fields have been hit. The Ukrainians may operate something out of western Ukraine, but that's a long ways from where the action is. But why bother with aircraft when you have rocket barrage weapons of equal or better accuracy? They give much less warning to the target. And ground weapons can be integrated with ground-based intelligence to clue them in to the right targets. This is particularly necessary when fighting against an adversary that prefers human shield tactics. You have to shoot only where the shooting comes from.
Were they indeed Russian tanks, though? Was it even footage taken in Ukraine? (The UKRs have been known to substitute footage from Syria as being from Ukraine.) The Russians have admitted to losing maybe ~200 tanks, but have destroyed ~2,000 Ukrainian ones. Russian casualties were about 5,000-6,000 (~1500 dead) and their count of Ukrainian casualties was ~20,000 total (maybe 10,000 dead).
One Russian goal is the elimination of Ukrainian military combat capability, by destruction or surrender of forces, and destruction of fixed and mobile assets. They have a long list of weapons depots, ammo dumps, and fuel reserves that they have destroyed, including the 2 (or 3) fuel refineries in Ukraine. The UKR army has nothing to shoot, very little to move with, and no fuel with which to move. They are fixed in place. The Russians first pinned them down, and now the main battle will be an encirclement of the 60,000-man Ukrainian main force in the Donbass in a "cauldron," where they will be pounded into submission or destruction.
To the contrary, they are making child's play of a NATO protege' armed with NATO weapons and trained in NATO interoperability tactics, and this makes NATO nervous. I think it was Colonel Douglas MacGregor (who commanded a tank formation during Gulf War II) who praised this operation as being very skillfully planned and executed. They are placing more emphasis on attainment of goals than adherence to a schedule. Americans are too impatient, and they therefore misjudge what they are given to see (the news from Ukraine and the Western powers is all corrupt at the source).
The fact that both sides lie constantly makes it hard for us to know the truth.
The Ukrainians are clearly still firing SAMs at Russian planes/helo. Thus Russia doesn't control the airspace in any way. Control is not just about jets and runways.
None of this negates my original theory. The Ukrainians didn't have half the training US Army does. They also have VERY different equipment and strategy. Yes, Russia is winning the proxy fight but they shouldn't just be winning. It should be a total route with very few casualties. Instead the ATGMs MANPADs etc are proving very effective at creating casualties. US Army would also be using MLRS, 155mm, and other stuff that the Ukrainians lost in the first week through the whole fight. Throw is some F-22s and Russia just doesn't stand a chance. To think otherwise is foolish.
The only difference is Russia is good enough that it would create casualties on our side not seen sense Vietnam. They would still lose.
You are just assuming that both sides lie. Ukraine has been shown to be lying. There is no evidence that the Russians are lying, only a disparity between their numbers and Ukraine's numbers. To say that Western observers support the Ukraine numbers is only to say that the West, who created the Ukraine corruption swamp, has a vested interest in sticking to the narrative that they are helping to create.
In any case, the Russian casualties at last note were ~5,000 (~1,500 dead), while their count for Ukrainians, whose bodies they are collecting and counting in the field, is more on the order of ~20,000 (~10,000 dead). Essentially all the Ukrainian armor and aircraft are destroyed. Their ammo dumps and fuel depots are destroyed, so they are out of fires and mobility. The West throws in weapons and the Russians collect them as trophies off the field, unfired, abandoned by fleeing Ukrainians, and being remanded to the Donetsk forces for their armament. The Russians have no problem using their UAVs, Su-25s, and attack helicopters (beyond the reach of any Ukraine aircraft operating from western Ukraine). Currently, Russia has encircled ~60,000 Ukrainian troops in a "cauldron" where they will be attritted by artillery or desertions---until they surrender or are finally destroyed.
I think you are right, NATO is having kittens about Russian tactics and weaponry. The idea that Russia is a second rate military is nonsense, ever since we saw how they deployed their air force over Syria we knew that.
Their bombers did round the clock attacks with seemingly no aircraft maintenance downtime at all, that isn't anything we could do.
As for nukes? They don't need nukes, they have charge cluster/EVO weapons as we do, all they have to do is open up a few select geological faults and that's it. But as the Sniffer in Chief isn't boss of the US military at all Russia can only win.
I read the works of Viktor Suvorov on the subject of the Russian military. Very tough dudes. No margin for weaklings or the faint of heart. The Russians have an attitude about combat, and once you understand it, one respects it. Very pragmatic. Very realistic. Unsentimental, without being unfeeling.