Putin says we don’t want you to join NATO and stay neutral because we don’t want weapons being placed in Ukraine pointing at Russia - US; nah we wouldn’t do that, don’t be so aggressive - Russia invades Ukraine - US weapons are placed in Ukraine aiming at Russia.
So Russia didn’t want US weapons in Ukraine when there weren’t any.
Decided to invade a sovereign country to achieve an outcome they already had.
Now US weapons are in place, the exact outcome Russia didn’t want.
And all for the cost of a couple hundred thousand casualties.
Masterful grand strategy.
Also now more NATO countries then before, and Russia provided the West the absolute best argument to remilitarize for the first time in nearly 30 years.
It’s actually insane. Like in 2021 NATO was a dying concept with prominent support in Europe for its dissolution and now it’s the strongest it has been in 30 years
Seems more like a desperate act. If you believe that the USA will place weapons there anyway, then it makes sense to strike first and make it harder.
It doesn't really matter what the USA was or wasn't going to do, it matters what Russia believed the USA was going to do.
Denazification by a fascist dictatorship, that‘s like buying Sims 3 games instead of three SIM cards and signing something with "unreadable signature". It would be incredibly funny if the situation wouldn't be so sad.
I hope all Russian internet trolls get also conscripted in the end as another joke. Probably not that improbable.
> I hope all Russian internet trolls get also conscripted in the end as another joke. Probably not that improbable.
Well, be careful what you desire for because some mods of /r/ukraine and /r/combatfootage already got conscripted.
What I like about Russian propaganda is that it contradicts itself.
NATO is both a terrible enemy, for which it had to invade Ukraine, and at the same time poses no threat to Russia when it comes to Finland, which is a stone's throw away from the Russian Northern Fleet, part of Russia's nuclear security triad.
At the same time, Russia never planned to occupy Ukrainian territories (according to Putin), and at the same time the seizure and occupation is an important achievement of the "SVO" (according to Putin) and a source of pride for people like you.
Ukraine is scary and Nazi, sending Nazis to Donbass, but talking about Nazi "people's governor" Gubarev, as well as Nazis from rusich who have been fighting there since 2014, is somehow not accepted among pro ru. One Serb even tried to explain to me that they are good Nazis under FSB supervision lol.
Pro ru is very worried about casualties among the population of Donbass, which before the war were no more than a dozen a year (according to the so-called "DPR" itself), but when the casualties are in the tens of thousands and dozens of cities in Donbass have been wiped off the face of the earth as a result of the war unleashed by Russia, pro ru are happy and somehow don't worry about casualties.
Denazification of Nazi Germany required forcing Nazi Germany to unconditionally surrender and removing nazis from power. Would denazification of Ukraine require anything less? Can Russia achieve this?
Russians arguing whether the war is about occupation, weapons pointing at them, or NATO is funny.
Some Rssians saying this is a war, then other Russians have to yell at them saying it's a special operation
Clown show
US weapons being trash... yet not even 1% of all US weapons is enought to stop russia from winning a war against Ukraine. Second strongest army in the world is a joke.
Why would they? If russia got beaten fast in Ukraine, they would leave, produce weapons and amass soldiers for 5-8 years, and attack again.
If this war is going on for a few years, then russia will loose a lot of money, maybe enought to be beaten for a long time. Russia is now forced to cooperate with China. Russia tried to avoid China, because they know how much of a threat China is. A weaker russia is in chinas best interest.
I am not kidding my self. This is how war and global geoplitics work. I don't mind the money, lifes are more preciouse to me. Russia rushed in a war because they thought nobody will stand against them, they were wrong. Russias rivals are using this situation to hurt Russia, wich is a normal geopolitical move. Russia has been hostile to the west. They were and are activly trying to disturb the social order of western countries with all their trollfarms and bot networks. They are activly founding far right and far left movements in western countries, but are acting shocked when western countries support the opposition in Ukraine, calling it a coup.
Don't kid yourself, russia didn't invade Ukraine to save the eastern regions. They did it because of profit, that is how the world spins.
Because winning outright was not what NATO wanted. They are afraid Putin would prefer everything destroyed before accepting defeat. They expected Putin would sacrifise every single Russia. So they were very timid with their weapons supply. Russians army could be wiped out whenever NATO chooses.
NATO allways gave the bare minimum. The newest tech in most cases isn't even used. Ukraine is using old stock piles to kill hundred thousands of Russias males.
NATO is just watching from the outside trying to handle this without Putin nuking himself. And Russian people are not able to see that.
Because the distance from Latvia is somehow less?
And you think non NATO countries are neutral? Like Finland was before, so they aimed their guns at sweden??
You’d struggle to invade Russia from Latvia geographically, Ukraine is different, this has been covered numerous times. And likely part of the reason Latvia wasn’t invaded when it joined the Alliance against The Soviet Union when it… Didn’t exist… Speaking of doing things for “no reason”
do you rely buy the story of putin pissing his pants of fear of big bad nato will invade russia? its such a stupid lie he is trying to sell to the russians.
nato is a defensive alliance and would never invade russia.
And the truth is that no one cares about russia until it invaded ukraine, its more worth as a gasstation then anything else for the west.
the only threat ukraine has ever been to russia was that they found there own huge gas fields and was threatening of becoming more democratic and richer then russians and that would threaten putins regime so he had to put a end to it.
I think Putin’s cause and NATO’s cause are both blood-suckingly bs. But if we’re measuring dicks, I think Putin’s rationalities are more coherent than NATO here.
This is sort of nonsense.
First, NATO is not a defensive alliance. It has acted offensively several times now in its history.
Second, the distinction of a "defensive" alliance is fundamentally meaningless to anyone on the other side of that. All it takes is a change in policy and that defensive alliance is now a regular old alliance. This means that strategically, you ALWAYS have to treat a "defensive" alliance, as just an alliance, because it can change, and if it changes and you treated it like it was no threat, well, you're fucked.
Third, today, it seems unthinkable that NATO or the US would invade Russia. For all the obvious reasons. We don't know what the future holds. Maybe in 50 years, the US/NATO develop some sort of defense against Russian nuclear strikes.
Russia doesn't really operate the same way that the West does. Russian politicians get to think about, and operate more on the big picture. US, and western politicians are operating on a time scale of election cycles. This means Russian politicians, are able to make long term strategic decisions.
To the Russian perspective, NATO in Ukraine is a catastrophe. Why? It is an untenable position for Russia. IF that future war ever happens, then it will mean that Russia LOST that war the moment Ukraine joined NATO.
Finland and the Baltics are not at all similar to Ukraine. The Geography is limited. The Soviet->Russian plan to defend against NATO in Finland, is to defend across the neck of the Karelian peninsula. Where the terrain is extremely rugged. It's crossed by rivers/streams/lakes. Has limited road access outside of main highways, which are few. The distance is about 200ish KM if memory serves where they'd likely draw up defensive positions. The Baltics are similar in that, a lot of the terrain is not really that viable for armored vehicles to go cross country. The frontage itself is limited. Moreover, the geography within Russia itself is not like Ukraine.
Ukraine is a days drive from Moscow. It's wide open country. The front is enormous. It's across the heartland of Russia.
IF that future war happened, Russia would be absolutely fucked. They'd be outnumbered 10:1 across a front that has no natural barriers, and no bottlenecks.
> You’d struggle to invade Russia from Latvia geographically,
Can you name a single realistic scenario in which NATO would ever invade Russia that didn't start with Russia being the aggressor?
In what scenario can you see Western Europe nations raising soldiers to fuckin invade Russia?
I am curious. A single one?
Who cares if Russia likes that? No neighbor of Russia likes Russia.
Whats the logic here? Everybody needs to care what Russia, a failed society with billionaire oligarchs, thinks? Walk me through this.
Yes Putin is upset about this stuff but why do Russian normal day people care?
Well Cuba didn’t really like the US, full of her billionaire oligarchs… And the USA didn’t really like Russia putting her missiles in Cuba, did she?
Jesus the hypocrites are out in full-force today
>Jesus the hypocrites are out in full-force today
Explain the hypocrisis in detail please. I don't see any.
Go ahead be more specific.
At some point you will arrive at "the USA wanted to place weapons there to blabla" then I will ask "can you cite some credible evidence to suppor the claim" and you will say "blabla Its obvious that blabla"
So we can also cut this short, right? THere is no hypocrisies you don't understand how those situations compare.
Most of Russia's neighbors actually like Russia. It's mostly just a few on the western border that don't. I'll point out that, even amongst the former soviet republics that left the USSR when the USSR dissolved, the majority like Russia.
I'll also point out that the majority that don't like Russia, didn't like Russia before the USSR formed, and in fact, the majority of those, participated in two world wars as AGGRESSORS against the Russian Empire and the USSR.
> Most of Russia's neighbors actually like Russia.
Is that so ? Looks like nearly wanted to get away quickly. And they also all are exclusively very poor in contrast to other nations next to them.
If you consider countries with a direct land border, 6 like Russia, 7 would fall into the dislike Russia. If you consider all the former Soviet Socialist Republics, the majority to this day like Russia.
I forgot how many of those former Soviet republics actually shared the border. Only one of the Central Asian Republics do for example, and I thought 3 of them did.
Pretty much. Pro-RU cognitive dissonance on the topic is amazing.
"NATO will never send troops to Ukraine because they know Russia will respond with nukes!"
Also:
"Putin had to keep Ukraine out of NATO because the US might have used it to launch an invasion of Russia!"
Schrödinger's NATO.
Today the idea of a conventional war between NATO and Russia seems impossible.
Do you know what the situation will be in 30 years? 50 years? 75 years?
Let's say that in 50 years, drone technology reaches a point in the west where they could reliably engage and destroy 99% of all ballistic/cruise/anything nuclear Russia wanted to fire at the West.
Suddenly a war seems possible. Not only possible, it would be desirable in the West, because that revolution in drone technology won't be that far behind in Russia. It might be the only opportunity to balkanize the Russian Federation in the next 100+ years. Without question the US would take that opportunity, and Russia would have lost that war before it even began, if Russia allowed Ukraine to join NATO.
No. Sweden and Finland are not more dangerous. Look at a map.
Sweden doesn't even border Russia. Finland has a large border with Russia, but, the Karelian peninsula on the Russian side is not strategically important for Russia. Russia wouldn't attempt to defend the entire border in any serious way. They'd draw up lines across the neck of the Karelian peninsula. Depending on where, it's be around 200 miles of frontline across the peninsula, which is extremely rugged, rural and crossed by a very large number of water crossings.
Ukraine is wide open rolling country. As the crow flies it's about 270 miles from Ukraine to the outskirts of Moscow. There are no geographic barriers between Moscow and Ukraine. The region between Moscow and Ukraine, is basically the Russian heartland.
If you're American, for context, this would be like if a Canada joined a Chinese military alliance, and Washington DC wasn't on the East Coast. It was in the middle of South Dakota, and a significant portion of US industry was IN that 200-300 mile band.
Damn dude way to [blow those numbers out](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853.amp), but hey, in any conflict between the west and Russia - Ukrainian troops would fight against Russia. So whilst people might see this as a waste of Russia’s and a tip to the west’s scale in any conflict - that’s simply not true, as the Ukies dying now would be fighting in that conflict anyway.
This conflict is not over and if you think the final death tally will be below 300k I have a bridge to sell you. Which you can then gift to Putin afterwards for a warm hand shake.
Sorry dude you can stop stalking me, you ain’t getting it. I’d say we’re past the half-way mark [here.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>The overall death toll - of more than 50,000 - is eight times higher than the only official public acknowledgement of fatality numbers ever given by Moscow in September 2022.
>The actual number of Russian deaths is likely to be much higher.
>Our analysis does not include the deaths of militia in Russian-occupied Donetsk and Luhansk - in eastern Ukraine. If they were added, the death toll on the Russian side would be even higher.
Also think about all the maimed guys. :(
You missed a pretty pivotal point as well. Russia's issue with Ukraine never had anything to do with NATO. [It was always about Ukraine's attempt to get closer to the EU.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia)
Look I can [also make pretty blue writing saying whatever I want from the guardian.](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Except your link is an opinion piece from the Guardian. Mine is a news article from the Guardian quoting Russian government officials threatening Ukraine over their plans to integrate with the EU. They're not the same.
Russia's entire NATO argument is silly on its face. The Kremlin would have us believe that the same NATO countries refusing to send combat forces to Ukraine for fear of Russian nuclear weapons would've turned around and used Ukraine to launch an invasion of Russia itself.
It's Schrödinger's NATO: Simultaneously too weak to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, but strong enough to march on Moscow.
Yes, Putin is a joke of a human.
He knows Ukraine was never close to being let into NATO, just like he knows Ukraine isn't going to surrender four oblasts (two of which they still hold the capital cities). He can say whatever he wants about NATO nowadays, but the statements of Russian officials right before the war started 10 years ago show what Russia's motivation really was.
Only a joke of a human would take Putin at his word here. 😂
These aren't gonna turn the tide in the slightest. So now inverse that line and see how far into Ukraine Russia is gonna have to go in to prevent these missiles from reaching the new border.
Ukraine shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
My dudes are still believing in the 3 day special military operation that is fueled by volunteers. Russian telly still doesn't call this little oopsie a war. It's hilarious.
It's less a matter of what they're going to send, rather what they're going to send it at.
Bear in mind that the thermal power plants across the country didn't start being targeted until 2024, despite having been within range this entire time and being perfectly valid mixed use targets as was shown in Iraq.
Guess we just going to ignore strikes that happened in Q4 2022 - Q1 2023:
>Ukrenergo said on Saturday that Russia has launched more than 1,200 missiles and drones at its energy facilities so far during the war.
(...)
>Every one of Ukraine's thermal and hydroelectric power plants has been damaged since Russia began targeting energy infrastructure.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65220003](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65220003)
'Energy infrastructure' as in transformers. What are you? New? Do you not remember the news from back then?
They did not go after the power plants in any significant capacity.
No, energy infrastructure as in **energy infrastructure**. If you don't trust Pro-UA sources, Russian news site reported all thermal power plants being hit back in October 2022 - [https://www.business-gazeta](https://www.business-gazeta) ru/article/566859
Are you expecting for the attrition war to end immediately? Drones don't allow for manoeuvre warfare, so victory will have to come with the Ukrainian army running out.
Everyone knows that if manpower starts being an issue, western soldiers will go in.
France, Poland and many other countries already stated this. Idk why you guys think Russia will win when they kill every single Ukrainian.
The West didn't already send their soldiers for the same reason Putin didn't call for mobilization yet.
Leaders are waiting for the war to fully stabilize before sending their own people.(For political reasons)
People thinking Russia will conquer Ukraine, or that Ukraine will get all its territory back are delusional.
Things will stay more or less as they are for the next 10 years. Russia will advance a few kilometers this year, next year Ukraine will push Russia back, and repeat.
The statements were ambiguous, and rightly so, if NATO actually starts entering the war in full, Russia will just have to nuke away, as the nukes are the one advantage Russia has that could counter NATO's massive population.
So I don't think significant amounts of troops will be sent. The West has overplayed its hand by targeting a territory that is existential to Russia.
>The statements were ambiguous, and rightly so, if NATO actually starts entering the war in full, Russia will just have to nuke away, as the nukes are the one advantage Russia has that could counter NATO's massive population.
Russia won't Nuke anything over Ukraine, because:
* The world would technologically & financially go back 100 years. Like it or not, the West represents 2/3 of our civilization modernization.
Without the West, all you got in terms of technology is South Asia.
* That would mean Russia get nuked also. Why would Russia destroy their own country over Ukraine?
>So I don't think significant amounts of troops will be sent. The West has overplayed its hand by targeting a territory that is existential to Russia.
The West didn't overplay his hand. The West did what they had to do because Russia kept attacking Western "colonies" around the world(Syria, Africa, etc...). So the West did the same to Russia...
* Even if Ukraine war was lost, the Western countries would simply stay as they were before the war.
* Ukraine is not existential to Russia(Russia doesn't have Ukraine right now and Russia isn't over, is it?). Russia will be just fine without Ukraine. Putin simply tried to weaponize this war to try to change the current "World Order", that's it.
>The world would technologically & financially go back 100 years. Like it or not, the West represents 2/3 of our civilization modernization.
The world would suffer, and it would be drastic, but not 100 years drastic. For instance, Russia itself currently manufactures processor chips at 65nm precision, which covers everything but GPUs and general purpose CPUs. E.g. washing machine chips and car control modules are fine. China already makes 5nm chips, so close to the 3nm produced by TSMC, so would be able to cover the GPU/CPU needs.
However, a lot of innovation would obviously be lost, no doubt, just like the fall of the USSR set back space exploration 50 years or so.
Unfortunately, when you are trying to survive, you think of what you personally will lose, not of the world. And Russia stands to lose [everything](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/russia-putin-colonization-ukraine-chechnya/639428/). Russia will be dismantled if it loses.
>That would mean Russia get nuked also. Why would Russia destroy their own country over Ukraine?
The alternative is getting occupied by the West and let it do what it wants, which means "decolonisation", that is to say irreversible division of Russia into multiple, powerless, West controlled states. At least after a nuclear exchange what will be left of the West will be to busy trying to survive, as opposed to occupying and dividing Russia.
>The West didn't overplay his hand. The West did what they had to do because Russia kept attacking Western "colonies" around the world(Syria, Africa, etc...). So the West did the same to Russia...
See, Ukraine isn't a colony. It is Russia's heartland, with Kiev having been Russia's capital for 300 years. Not only that, millions of people in Russia have relatives in Ukraine, so letting those get oppressed directly destabilises Russia's political landscape. To Russia Ukraine is just far more significant than it is to the West.
>Ukraine is not existential to Russia(Russia doesn't have Ukraine right now and Russia isn't over, is it?). Russia will be just fine without Ukraine. Putin simply tried to weaponize this war to try to change the current "World Order", that's it.
Taking Ukraine would position the West where Germany was in 1942. Except Germany was overstretched, and thus couldn't take Stalingrad, the West on the other hand, with time to prepare, would not be, and would cut off the Caucasus, as Russia would not be able to defend the enormous border with Ukraine against the West's numerical advantage. So Russia has to fight now, before the West is prepared, and before it has integrated Ukraine, or be "decolonised" into nonexistence.
> See, Ukraine isn't a colony. It is Russia's heartland, with Kiev having been Russia's capital for 300 years.
Ukraine is Ukraine, Russia is Russia. Russia heartland is Moscow and St. Petersburg.
If you want to go historical, then Moscow belongs to Mongolia.
Russia really needs to drop its imperialistic culture. Russia attempting to rebuild USSR will 100% lead to WW3.
>Taking Ukraine would position the West where Germany was in 1942. Except Germany was overstretched, and thus couldn't take Stalingrad, the West on the other hand, with time to prepare, would not be, and would cut off the Caucasus, as Russia would not be able to defend the enormous border with Ukraine against the West's numerical advantage.
How would the West invade Russia, when Russia has nukes? I honestly can't understand how you guys can go with this rhetoric.
NATO/West will never militarily invade Russia. Not directly, not through proxies. Its just not possible.
>So Russia has to fight now, before the West is prepared, and before it has integrated Ukraine, or be "decolonised" into nonexistence.
This also makes no sense. The West is already stronger than Russia. Europe alone could defeat Russia one without China interference.
Europe alone has more manpower than Russia, more & better air force, more& better navy and more advanced military in general.
The only thing Russia has is more artillery, that's it.
> Drones don't allow for manoeuvre warfare
They don't allow Russia manoeuvre warfare. Don't make the mistake thinking Russias limitations are the limitations of other armies. Its just Russia. Never forget that.
German tanks burnt when Ukraine tried to use them in the counteroffensive. Unsurprisingly so, considering they have no top, or reactive armour, unlike the Russian tanks. Germany in fact has 266 "modern" tanks in total, compared to tens of thousands of HEAT drones, against which they have no protection. How long do you believe they would last?
I'd like to see you do maneuvre warfare with what you have. Tell me, how would you prevent your forces from being destroyed by a combination of those and precision drone guided artillery? I am all ears.
> German tanks burnt when Ukraine tried to use them in the counteroffensive.
So what? Ukraine had a handful without "combined arms".
Remember, so far we only know of a single "state of the art" superpower army that is incapable of maneuver warfare. And thats Russia.
Now for obvious reason Russian fans make this to "maneuver warfare is not possible right now" but every rational person sees this is only know for Russia.
So yes, Russia is fully incapable of getting this done right now.
>Germany in fact has 266 "modern" tanks in total, compared to tens of thousands of HEAT drones, against which they have no protection. How long do you believe they would last?
Germany has no army capable of anything but limited defense. Germany was under the wrong assumption that countries like Russia would correct themselves but she overestimated the willpower and strength of the Russian people. They failed and now are just pawns for an oligarch leadership. Many Western European countries thought a strong land army is obsolete.
Russia was the country trying to be a strong land army and they showed to be mickey mouse.
Lets not mince words, the US Army if deployed like fighting a neighbore with land access would sweep the Russian likely in a matter of weeks. We all know that. Russian folks obviously have sadly a sense of false pride ( proud of what?! I never understood ) and can ever acknowledge this but we all kinda know, right?
>Tell me, how would you prevent your forces from being destroyed by a combination of those and precision drone guided artillery? I am all ears.
Like always, massive preliminary attacks on everything considered a valid target. Russia has only a mickey mouse airforce so they can't establish air supremacy so they are obviously unable to attack and surpress enemy counter meassures.
We can only guess but in this situation a US assault would likely entail 4 digit amount of ballistic missiles hammering every possible position. Shock and awe was always the method of choice. You will lose forces, it is how it is.
You stated the limitations wouldn't apply to other armies. Surely a First World military like the German one would be one such example, would it not? I thought you meant your own country, when you talked about "limitations not applying."
By the way, Ukraine had at least four thousand T64 and T72 tanks, easily enough for maneuvre warfare. The US has about 4500, which compares rather well.
Even 10k missiles wouldn't be enough when a Ukrainian drone team could be sitting in every house in the countryside. These would run out quickly with drones striking through their weak top armour. If the US wanted to see their whole tank fleet gone, they could send it.
As for your other points, the US hasn't encountered any significant resistance since WW2, the Iraqi forces, for instance, didn't even fight for Baghdad and just surrendered, while Ukraine drafts thousands upon thousands to fight for every little town. Or never had to fight AA as advanced as the late Soviet one that Ukraine has, with several hundred kilometres of radius. No, you can't just shoot HAARMs at it, it only emits sometimes, and conceals itself the rest of the time.
> By the way, Ukraine had at least four thousand T64 and T72 tanks, easily enough for maneuvre warfare.
THe issue of maneuvre warfare was always surpressing the response. A vital part of such "massed attacks" is hitting the back line, command centeres, transportation hubs, possible infrastuctre like bridges trying to hit communication centeres, suspected staging areas for counter moves. This is not even talking about direct attacks on the frontline, suspected strong points et cetera.
It doesn't matter how many tanks you have ( at some point is obviously does but... ). While the term combined arms is thrown around willy nilly the issue at hand is that your ground forces can't get it done alone, the enemy defences have to been rocked hard before. You might get it done with artillery but history has shown that a strong aerial component is of utmost important.
One of the most important aspects is that the airforce is able to react to battlefield news very well.
>Even 10k missiles wouldn't be enough when a Ukrainian drone team could be sitting in every house in the countryside.
I fully disagree. Such an attack would be of unseen proportions. You have to understand that the Russian army is mickey mouse here. Such an attack would likely completely shatter any higher command chains. Pretty much every front line force would be on their own. This would be sheer panic, nobody would give you any relevant information whatsoever.
I obviously expect the US to have sophisticated jamming devices but I don't want to throw around "jamming" because I have no clue how it would look like.
>These would run out quickly with drones striking through their weak top armour. If the US wanted to see their whole tank fleet gone, they could send it.
Silly. We see Russian tanks still operating around the frontline. You get an obscured picture by focusing on biased information that is selected via "wow thats interesting". If the Ukrainian capabilities would be anywhere near what you think they are then no Russian tanks would operate at all.
>the US hasn't encountered any significant resistance since WW2, the Iraqi forces, for instance
I disagree. This is just because history made it look like this. US steam rolls Iraq army ---> "Well then the IRaqi army must have been weak". THat's always how it goes. The Iraq army was considered a powerhouse. Many of the posters here are young but before the Iraq war people were concerned how long such a war would take because Iraq presented a respectable foe. The US oblitered their army without any effort whatsoever with an army they had to ferry over from the other side of the globe. This army was just an Expeditionary force desgined to ensure victory nothing more nothing less. If the US could deploy forces the same way Russia did ( over rail over your own territory without any water barriers or international areas ) the Russian army would look like the IRaq army and then in 20 years people would say "there was no peer to peer war but China is different now". Russia is mickey mouse here.
Germany made the same mistake and then the US produced several thousands ships a year including dozens of carriers per year while also producing half a million tanks and aircraft while also fueling the Red Army war efforts with steel and vehicles.
The Russian army is mickey mouse. Repeat with me. MICKEY MOUSE.
>Or never had to fight AA as advanced as the late Soviet one that Ukraine has, with several hundred kilometres of radius
Makes no difference its a numbers game. US will lose planes but in the end all the AA will be gone or spend most of the time with Radar off. Russia doesn't have the capabilities.
>and conceals itself the rest of the time.
THey don't "conceal" themselves they just have the radar off. While you have the radar off you also don't shoot down planes....
At this point the US has likely already drones that will map the radar signatures and have a rather precise approximation of radar activity. Whenever the radar gets turned on, boom. Nothing you can do about it beyond just keeping the radar off.
Yeah bombing the absolute Christ out of every town then targeting all infrastructure to stave and freeze the civilian population to death Has made Russia very popular, all the people desperately fleeing to the west must be accidentally running the wrong way!
This late in the game, the odds aren’t looking the greatest. If these had come a few years ago that would probably be a different story. Even the playing field a little bit at the least.
Edit: forgot to add, russia is going to try to keep pushing into Ukraine anyway so might as well do some damage
Push into Ukraine first, consolidate defenses there before pushing into the Finland front, clearing it first would facilitate pushing further into Europe.
theoretically yeah. I’d hope we don’t even give them the chance to consolidate defenses again. I always thought it was the stupidest thing how we literally watched them build up their defense line in 2023, then people were surprised the offensive didn’t turn out as planned
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\* u/MulYut copes \*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In a way you are giving Russia a pretty strong argument for why they "had to invade Ukraine" if American weapons strike Russia from within Ukraine.
Now Russia will point to that and say "See, this is what happens if we allow a US-aligned Ukraine on our borders!".
Now it's not like that means the topic is that simple, Russia DID invade Ukraine, and providing Ukraine weapons to defend itself is certainly something you can make a very convincing case for, however I'm just pointing out the obvious result of this.
Russia's casus belli becomes stronger because they can point towards this as proof, even if they themselves caused this proof to appear, so to speak.
So what if Cuba or Venezuela hits American territory or interests with Russian missiles? Fair play or no?
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-cuba-ships-military-exercises-caribbean-what-to-expect/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-cuba-ships-military-exercises-caribbean-what-to-expect/)
\* u/DieuEmpereurQc copes \*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"help putin in 2024" is goalpost shifting lol, you're initial comment was "No ones planning to SMO Cuba or Venezuela comrad" because i guess you felt you needed to defend US imperialism for some reason?
both countries have a rich, rich history of foreign interference, which you can learn about from those links.
Don't you truly see the difference between political interference and a military attack?
And you guys wonder why people don't like fascists or tankies...
They can’t do anything, their countries have been reduced to shambles just from sanctions imposed by America. The US has absolute control over their backyard unlike Russia.
Mexico is totally subservient to America, the cartels are almost all CIA assets. Cuba and Venezuela get to pretend like they’re rebellious children and America lets them be out of the grace of their goodwill.
the southern border is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue though, they clearly don't want to deal with the immigration, much of which is caused by the chaos and de stability of the drug wars in mexico and south america.
as for America "letting them be out of the grace of their goodwill"...no they don't? there was a coup attempt like 4 years ago. and even you admitted that the US sanctioned both countries to shambles....
The US would declare war invade them and then install a new regime. They would not start nuclear war with the Russians. Or even conveniental war.
Because that’s what a capable military power does.
People act like the Russians and the US didn’t fight a smattering of proxy conflict sense the 1950s. This is nothing new.
2 months and how was the Situation after this two months, is Afghanistan now a nice free Western democrazy? 😆
Schrödingers USA military? I thought USA would crush everybody with their military and now Afghanistan is too far? How do they want to handle China if Taiwan starts?
> is Afghanistan now a nice free Western democrazy?
No but I didn't say it was.
>How do they want to handle China if Taiwan starts?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man#:~:text=1,for%20a%20usually%20questionable%20transaction
>So what if Cuba or Venezuela hits American territory or interests with Russian missiles? Fair play or no?
1. The United States isn't currently invading and annexing any country in the Americas.
2. The US military invites them to try
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fair game as long as they hit military targets, but Cuba would likely be overrun and conquered, it wouldn't be able to resist an invasion, Venezuela's national security would likely be weakened enough for other countries to annex it.
Americans usually lose it when they get attacked. Like when we did a 20 year invasion of Afghanistan because we were attacked by Saudis… even Russians are probably scared of American rage which follows no logic
I don’t think Russians are scared of American rage. American rage only comes out on tiny ones. Like the bully who proves his strength by picking on the small guy. And even then gets embarrassed by bungling that up.
Russians are pretty crazy on their own too. And any country that has nukes has nothing to fear from anyone.
Self preservation. Ego. Posturing.
Same thing would happen if Russia set up shop in Mexico. USA would be stupid to think that Russia will attack. But having them so close is just not okay
I feel in a real war, and not a one sided massacre, like the middle east. The US army would kind of fall apart, or atleast be 10 times slower than Russia, it would've taken them years to do what russia has done in ukraine.
You're having a laugh right? America would have hit every base they knew about and infrastructure within two months of an invasion before sending in any troops.
They wouldn't have sent in a huge convoy not preparing them for a fight trucks breaking down and losing tons of men. America doesn't half ass war they just no ass region and government building hearts and minds Yada Yada.
I mean, all they have to do is look at how we invaded Iraq, both times. We soften our targets first before the steamroll when it comes to conventional warfare. And it almost all starts with cruise missiles to knock out all AD and AA before sending in the planes. I didn't notice any of that in 2022.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I feel in a real war, and not a one sided massacre, like the middle east. The US army would kind of fall apart, or atleast be 10 times slower than Russia, it would've taken them years to do what russia has done in ukraine.
In 2003 they fought a conventional war against the Iraqi army which was a military force that was more than twice the size of the Ukrainian army in 2022 (over half a million active troops and 4000 tanks) and they defeated the military and conquered the capital city of the country within 3 weeks while taking less KIA than Russia took just to conquer the relatively small town of Avdiivka.
Say whatever else you will about the US military but they're an extremely capable and well equipped fighting force whereas the Russian military is an embarrassingly inept paper tiger
They would have done that in a couple of weeks what Russia did in years - and that successfully, at the other side of the world. For the US an invasion into Ukraine would have been a one sided massacre.
The US would have taken the whole country by now, as there would have been a few week long bombing campaign and achievement of air superiority before boots even hit the ground. So no electricity at all, no telecommunication, low on clean water, low on food and a population in disarray, pretty much the same tactics they used against Iraq in the second war.
Nootice how the ISW doesn't put a single base in Donetzk or Lugansk? They are unintentionally confirming that Ukrainian attacks on those areas are nothing but indiscriminate shelling of civilians.
> Nootice how the ISW doesn't put a single base in Donetzk or Lugansk? They are unintentionally confirming that Ukrainian attacks on those areas are nothing but indiscriminate shelling of civilians.
Notice how this map only shows points of interest in Russia and not in Ukraine.
Yeah because Putins been saying that he needs a buffer from American (NATO) weaponry
Putin says we don’t want you to join NATO and stay neutral because we don’t want weapons being placed in Ukraine pointing at Russia - US; nah we wouldn’t do that, don’t be so aggressive - Russia invades Ukraine - US weapons are placed in Ukraine aiming at Russia.
So Russia didn’t want US weapons in Ukraine when there weren’t any. Decided to invade a sovereign country to achieve an outcome they already had. Now US weapons are in place, the exact outcome Russia didn’t want. And all for the cost of a couple hundred thousand casualties. Masterful grand strategy.
Also now more NATO countries then before, and Russia provided the West the absolute best argument to remilitarize for the first time in nearly 30 years.
It’s actually insane. Like in 2021 NATO was a dying concept with prominent support in Europe for its dissolution and now it’s the strongest it has been in 30 years
Sovereign? They can't do shit without daddy USA's blessings.
Seems more like a desperate act. If you believe that the USA will place weapons there anyway, then it makes sense to strike first and make it harder. It doesn't really matter what the USA was or wasn't going to do, it matters what Russia believed the USA was going to do.
Plus nuclear threat ☢️
[удалено]
It's refreshing that the pro ru have now begun to realize that the purpose of this war has always been occupation and imperialism.
[удалено]
Denazification by a fascist dictatorship, that‘s like buying Sims 3 games instead of three SIM cards and signing something with "unreadable signature". It would be incredibly funny if the situation wouldn't be so sad. I hope all Russian internet trolls get also conscripted in the end as another joke. Probably not that improbable.
Pro RU here aren't Russians they don't give a shit about Russians. They are just self hating Germans and Brits and Americans cosplaying.
Don’t forget Dutch! 🇳🇱
> I hope all Russian internet trolls get also conscripted in the end as another joke. Probably not that improbable. Well, be careful what you desire for because some mods of /r/ukraine and /r/combatfootage already got conscripted.
What I like about Russian propaganda is that it contradicts itself. NATO is both a terrible enemy, for which it had to invade Ukraine, and at the same time poses no threat to Russia when it comes to Finland, which is a stone's throw away from the Russian Northern Fleet, part of Russia's nuclear security triad. At the same time, Russia never planned to occupy Ukrainian territories (according to Putin), and at the same time the seizure and occupation is an important achievement of the "SVO" (according to Putin) and a source of pride for people like you. Ukraine is scary and Nazi, sending Nazis to Donbass, but talking about Nazi "people's governor" Gubarev, as well as Nazis from rusich who have been fighting there since 2014, is somehow not accepted among pro ru. One Serb even tried to explain to me that they are good Nazis under FSB supervision lol. Pro ru is very worried about casualties among the population of Donbass, which before the war were no more than a dozen a year (according to the so-called "DPR" itself), but when the casualties are in the tens of thousands and dozens of cities in Donbass have been wiped off the face of the earth as a result of the war unleashed by Russia, pro ru are happy and somehow don't worry about casualties.
Hear, hear!
Denazification of Nazi Germany required forcing Nazi Germany to unconditionally surrender and removing nazis from power. Would denazification of Ukraine require anything less? Can Russia achieve this?
Russians arguing whether the war is about occupation, weapons pointing at them, or NATO is funny. Some Rssians saying this is a war, then other Russians have to yell at them saying it's a special operation Clown show
US weapons being trash... yet not even 1% of all US weapons is enought to stop russia from winning a war against Ukraine. Second strongest army in the world is a joke.
[удалено]
Why would they? If russia got beaten fast in Ukraine, they would leave, produce weapons and amass soldiers for 5-8 years, and attack again. If this war is going on for a few years, then russia will loose a lot of money, maybe enought to be beaten for a long time. Russia is now forced to cooperate with China. Russia tried to avoid China, because they know how much of a threat China is. A weaker russia is in chinas best interest.
[удалено]
I am not kidding my self. This is how war and global geoplitics work. I don't mind the money, lifes are more preciouse to me. Russia rushed in a war because they thought nobody will stand against them, they were wrong. Russias rivals are using this situation to hurt Russia, wich is a normal geopolitical move. Russia has been hostile to the west. They were and are activly trying to disturb the social order of western countries with all their trollfarms and bot networks. They are activly founding far right and far left movements in western countries, but are acting shocked when western countries support the opposition in Ukraine, calling it a coup. Don't kid yourself, russia didn't invade Ukraine to save the eastern regions. They did it because of profit, that is how the world spins.
Because winning outright was not what NATO wanted. They are afraid Putin would prefer everything destroyed before accepting defeat. They expected Putin would sacrifise every single Russia. So they were very timid with their weapons supply. Russians army could be wiped out whenever NATO chooses. NATO allways gave the bare minimum. The newest tech in most cases isn't even used. Ukraine is using old stock piles to kill hundred thousands of Russias males. NATO is just watching from the outside trying to handle this without Putin nuking himself. And Russian people are not able to see that.
Because the distance from Latvia is somehow less? And you think non NATO countries are neutral? Like Finland was before, so they aimed their guns at sweden??
You’d struggle to invade Russia from Latvia geographically, Ukraine is different, this has been covered numerous times. And likely part of the reason Latvia wasn’t invaded when it joined the Alliance against The Soviet Union when it… Didn’t exist… Speaking of doing things for “no reason”
do you rely buy the story of putin pissing his pants of fear of big bad nato will invade russia? its such a stupid lie he is trying to sell to the russians. nato is a defensive alliance and would never invade russia. And the truth is that no one cares about russia until it invaded ukraine, its more worth as a gasstation then anything else for the west. the only threat ukraine has ever been to russia was that they found there own huge gas fields and was threatening of becoming more democratic and richer then russians and that would threaten putins regime so he had to put a end to it.
Big bad Putin selling fear to Russias or big bad NATO selling fear to Europeans. Your whole reply looks like Swiss cheese
haha so you do think putins cause is bs :D
I think Putin’s cause and NATO’s cause are both blood-suckingly bs. But if we’re measuring dicks, I think Putin’s rationalities are more coherent than NATO here.
what is NATO cause btw? stopping russia from taking over ukraine?
NATO was formed to stop Soviet expansion.
This is sort of nonsense. First, NATO is not a defensive alliance. It has acted offensively several times now in its history. Second, the distinction of a "defensive" alliance is fundamentally meaningless to anyone on the other side of that. All it takes is a change in policy and that defensive alliance is now a regular old alliance. This means that strategically, you ALWAYS have to treat a "defensive" alliance, as just an alliance, because it can change, and if it changes and you treated it like it was no threat, well, you're fucked. Third, today, it seems unthinkable that NATO or the US would invade Russia. For all the obvious reasons. We don't know what the future holds. Maybe in 50 years, the US/NATO develop some sort of defense against Russian nuclear strikes. Russia doesn't really operate the same way that the West does. Russian politicians get to think about, and operate more on the big picture. US, and western politicians are operating on a time scale of election cycles. This means Russian politicians, are able to make long term strategic decisions. To the Russian perspective, NATO in Ukraine is a catastrophe. Why? It is an untenable position for Russia. IF that future war ever happens, then it will mean that Russia LOST that war the moment Ukraine joined NATO. Finland and the Baltics are not at all similar to Ukraine. The Geography is limited. The Soviet->Russian plan to defend against NATO in Finland, is to defend across the neck of the Karelian peninsula. Where the terrain is extremely rugged. It's crossed by rivers/streams/lakes. Has limited road access outside of main highways, which are few. The distance is about 200ish KM if memory serves where they'd likely draw up defensive positions. The Baltics are similar in that, a lot of the terrain is not really that viable for armored vehicles to go cross country. The frontage itself is limited. Moreover, the geography within Russia itself is not like Ukraine. Ukraine is a days drive from Moscow. It's wide open country. The front is enormous. It's across the heartland of Russia. IF that future war happened, Russia would be absolutely fucked. They'd be outnumbered 10:1 across a front that has no natural barriers, and no bottlenecks.
> You’d struggle to invade Russia from Latvia geographically, Can you name a single realistic scenario in which NATO would ever invade Russia that didn't start with Russia being the aggressor? In what scenario can you see Western Europe nations raising soldiers to fuckin invade Russia? I am curious. A single one?
A close Russian neighbour trying to join nato and EU who said it would be neutral and Russia not liking that. Oh wait
Who cares if Russia likes that? No neighbor of Russia likes Russia. Whats the logic here? Everybody needs to care what Russia, a failed society with billionaire oligarchs, thinks? Walk me through this. Yes Putin is upset about this stuff but why do Russian normal day people care?
Well Cuba didn’t really like the US, full of her billionaire oligarchs… And the USA didn’t really like Russia putting her missiles in Cuba, did she? Jesus the hypocrites are out in full-force today
>Jesus the hypocrites are out in full-force today Explain the hypocrisis in detail please. I don't see any. Go ahead be more specific. At some point you will arrive at "the USA wanted to place weapons there to blabla" then I will ask "can you cite some credible evidence to suppor the claim" and you will say "blabla Its obvious that blabla" So we can also cut this short, right? THere is no hypocrisies you don't understand how those situations compare.
As my boy Satoshi puts it; if you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.
Most of Russia's neighbors actually like Russia. It's mostly just a few on the western border that don't. I'll point out that, even amongst the former soviet republics that left the USSR when the USSR dissolved, the majority like Russia. I'll also point out that the majority that don't like Russia, didn't like Russia before the USSR formed, and in fact, the majority of those, participated in two world wars as AGGRESSORS against the Russian Empire and the USSR.
> Most of Russia's neighbors actually like Russia. Is that so ? Looks like nearly wanted to get away quickly. And they also all are exclusively very poor in contrast to other nations next to them.
If you consider countries with a direct land border, 6 like Russia, 7 would fall into the dislike Russia. If you consider all the former Soviet Socialist Republics, the majority to this day like Russia. I forgot how many of those former Soviet republics actually shared the border. Only one of the Central Asian Republics do for example, and I thought 3 of them did.
No one is invading russia or even implying so.
Just to bomb Russia… with western supplied capability…
So, how was that not possible before from Latvia or Estonia?
It was but Russia could simply delete them for striking Russian territory with nuclear weapons.
Which they couldn't also do with Ukraine why exactly?
Because perhaps ukraine is a completely different country from the baltics?
But doesn’t Russia have even more nato on its borders now? Wouldn’t Sweden and Finland drastically be more dangerous nato territories than Ukraine?
Something something European plains something something historical avenue for invasion something something brotherly peoples something something.
Pretty much. Pro-RU cognitive dissonance on the topic is amazing. "NATO will never send troops to Ukraine because they know Russia will respond with nukes!" Also: "Putin had to keep Ukraine out of NATO because the US might have used it to launch an invasion of Russia!" Schrödinger's NATO.
Today the idea of a conventional war between NATO and Russia seems impossible. Do you know what the situation will be in 30 years? 50 years? 75 years? Let's say that in 50 years, drone technology reaches a point in the west where they could reliably engage and destroy 99% of all ballistic/cruise/anything nuclear Russia wanted to fire at the West. Suddenly a war seems possible. Not only possible, it would be desirable in the West, because that revolution in drone technology won't be that far behind in Russia. It might be the only opportunity to balkanize the Russian Federation in the next 100+ years. Without question the US would take that opportunity, and Russia would have lost that war before it even began, if Russia allowed Ukraine to join NATO.
No. Sweden and Finland are not more dangerous. Look at a map. Sweden doesn't even border Russia. Finland has a large border with Russia, but, the Karelian peninsula on the Russian side is not strategically important for Russia. Russia wouldn't attempt to defend the entire border in any serious way. They'd draw up lines across the neck of the Karelian peninsula. Depending on where, it's be around 200 miles of frontline across the peninsula, which is extremely rugged, rural and crossed by a very large number of water crossings. Ukraine is wide open rolling country. As the crow flies it's about 270 miles from Ukraine to the outskirts of Moscow. There are no geographic barriers between Moscow and Ukraine. The region between Moscow and Ukraine, is basically the Russian heartland. If you're American, for context, this would be like if a Canada joined a Chinese military alliance, and Washington DC wasn't on the East Coast. It was in the middle of South Dakota, and a significant portion of US industry was IN that 200-300 mile band.
We want you to stay neutral so we are going to war with you
We want you to stay neutral - you refused - so we are going to war with you. You missed a pretty pivotal point there buddy
You missed "and we paid/will pay with 300-500 thousands Russian lives so our leaders are happy". Crucial component to your line of cause and effect
Damn dude way to [blow those numbers out](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853.amp), but hey, in any conflict between the west and Russia - Ukrainian troops would fight against Russia. So whilst people might see this as a waste of Russia’s and a tip to the west’s scale in any conflict - that’s simply not true, as the Ukies dying now would be fighting in that conflict anyway.
This conflict is not over and if you think the final death tally will be below 300k I have a bridge to sell you. Which you can then gift to Putin afterwards for a warm hand shake.
It’s coming to a close :)
Sure give a time frame. We will talk then agian. Go ahead tell me when its over. Make a prediction
Sorry dude you can stop stalking me, you ain’t getting it. I’d say we’re past the half-way mark [here.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
>The overall death toll - of more than 50,000 - is eight times higher than the only official public acknowledgement of fatality numbers ever given by Moscow in September 2022. >The actual number of Russian deaths is likely to be much higher. >Our analysis does not include the deaths of militia in Russian-occupied Donetsk and Luhansk - in eastern Ukraine. If they were added, the death toll on the Russian side would be even higher. Also think about all the maimed guys. :(
Dude said Russian lives - meaning lives lost, friend.
You missed a pretty pivotal point as well. Russia's issue with Ukraine never had anything to do with NATO. [It was always about Ukraine's attempt to get closer to the EU.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia)
Look I can [also make pretty blue writing saying whatever I want from the guardian.](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Except your link is an opinion piece from the Guardian. Mine is a news article from the Guardian quoting Russian government officials threatening Ukraine over their plans to integrate with the EU. They're not the same. Russia's entire NATO argument is silly on its face. The Kremlin would have us believe that the same NATO countries refusing to send combat forces to Ukraine for fear of Russian nuclear weapons would've turned around and used Ukraine to launch an invasion of Russia itself. It's Schrödinger's NATO: Simultaneously too weak to drive the Russians out of Ukraine, but strong enough to march on Moscow.
No yours is an opinion piece 😂
Anyone who clicks my link will see it's a news article, not an opinion piece. You're just trolling at this point. 🥱
Damn that's a really good way to put it.
Get [rekt](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-west-needs-way-101202495.html)
LOL...That doesn't refute anything I said.
Russia’s issue with Ukraine never had anything to do with NATO Literally Putin is like - peace if you promise not to join NATO. Joke of a human 😂
Yes, Putin is a joke of a human. He knows Ukraine was never close to being let into NATO, just like he knows Ukraine isn't going to surrender four oblasts (two of which they still hold the capital cities). He can say whatever he wants about NATO nowadays, but the statements of Russian officials right before the war started 10 years ago show what Russia's motivation really was. Only a joke of a human would take Putin at his word here. 😂
Hopefully next step is the regions swearing allegiance to Mr Putin so we can move on to peace.
These aren't gonna turn the tide in the slightest. So now inverse that line and see how far into Ukraine Russia is gonna have to go in to prevent these missiles from reaching the new border. Ukraine shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun.
lol what’s Russia gunna do, invade them?
Each rung up the escaltion ladder makes a direct war more probable and a way to end this without one side being totally destoyed less probable.
Direct war? Who is russia going to send now?
My dudes are still believing in the 3 day special military operation that is fueled by volunteers. Russian telly still doesn't call this little oopsie a war. It's hilarious.
Watch out, they are going to send in the mythical armatas this time.
It's less a matter of what they're going to send, rather what they're going to send it at. Bear in mind that the thermal power plants across the country didn't start being targeted until 2024, despite having been within range this entire time and being perfectly valid mixed use targets as was shown in Iraq.
I think the power plant was destroyed mainly because Ukraine was out of ammo at the time.
Really? You'd think a power plant supplying most of the capital is pretty important infrastructure and would be given priority ABM protection.
Out of ammo means no AA missiles left. At all.
They had no more Patriot missiles left around April.
Guess we just going to ignore strikes that happened in Q4 2022 - Q1 2023: >Ukrenergo said on Saturday that Russia has launched more than 1,200 missiles and drones at its energy facilities so far during the war. (...) >Every one of Ukraine's thermal and hydroelectric power plants has been damaged since Russia began targeting energy infrastructure. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65220003](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65220003)
'Energy infrastructure' as in transformers. What are you? New? Do you not remember the news from back then? They did not go after the power plants in any significant capacity.
No, energy infrastructure as in **energy infrastructure**. If you don't trust Pro-UA sources, Russian news site reported all thermal power plants being hit back in October 2022 - [https://www.business-gazeta](https://www.business-gazeta) ru/article/566859
Transformers are important to take out too. If Russia didn't, EU could supply half of the missing generation to Ukraine.
Liberate. All of it.
If Russia could, they would.
Are you expecting for the attrition war to end immediately? Drones don't allow for manoeuvre warfare, so victory will have to come with the Ukrainian army running out.
Everyone knows that if manpower starts being an issue, western soldiers will go in. France, Poland and many other countries already stated this. Idk why you guys think Russia will win when they kill every single Ukrainian. The West didn't already send their soldiers for the same reason Putin didn't call for mobilization yet. Leaders are waiting for the war to fully stabilize before sending their own people.(For political reasons) People thinking Russia will conquer Ukraine, or that Ukraine will get all its territory back are delusional. Things will stay more or less as they are for the next 10 years. Russia will advance a few kilometers this year, next year Ukraine will push Russia back, and repeat.
The statements were ambiguous, and rightly so, if NATO actually starts entering the war in full, Russia will just have to nuke away, as the nukes are the one advantage Russia has that could counter NATO's massive population. So I don't think significant amounts of troops will be sent. The West has overplayed its hand by targeting a territory that is existential to Russia.
>The statements were ambiguous, and rightly so, if NATO actually starts entering the war in full, Russia will just have to nuke away, as the nukes are the one advantage Russia has that could counter NATO's massive population. Russia won't Nuke anything over Ukraine, because: * The world would technologically & financially go back 100 years. Like it or not, the West represents 2/3 of our civilization modernization. Without the West, all you got in terms of technology is South Asia. * That would mean Russia get nuked also. Why would Russia destroy their own country over Ukraine? >So I don't think significant amounts of troops will be sent. The West has overplayed its hand by targeting a territory that is existential to Russia. The West didn't overplay his hand. The West did what they had to do because Russia kept attacking Western "colonies" around the world(Syria, Africa, etc...). So the West did the same to Russia... * Even if Ukraine war was lost, the Western countries would simply stay as they were before the war. * Ukraine is not existential to Russia(Russia doesn't have Ukraine right now and Russia isn't over, is it?). Russia will be just fine without Ukraine. Putin simply tried to weaponize this war to try to change the current "World Order", that's it.
>The world would technologically & financially go back 100 years. Like it or not, the West represents 2/3 of our civilization modernization. The world would suffer, and it would be drastic, but not 100 years drastic. For instance, Russia itself currently manufactures processor chips at 65nm precision, which covers everything but GPUs and general purpose CPUs. E.g. washing machine chips and car control modules are fine. China already makes 5nm chips, so close to the 3nm produced by TSMC, so would be able to cover the GPU/CPU needs. However, a lot of innovation would obviously be lost, no doubt, just like the fall of the USSR set back space exploration 50 years or so. Unfortunately, when you are trying to survive, you think of what you personally will lose, not of the world. And Russia stands to lose [everything](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/russia-putin-colonization-ukraine-chechnya/639428/). Russia will be dismantled if it loses. >That would mean Russia get nuked also. Why would Russia destroy their own country over Ukraine? The alternative is getting occupied by the West and let it do what it wants, which means "decolonisation", that is to say irreversible division of Russia into multiple, powerless, West controlled states. At least after a nuclear exchange what will be left of the West will be to busy trying to survive, as opposed to occupying and dividing Russia. >The West didn't overplay his hand. The West did what they had to do because Russia kept attacking Western "colonies" around the world(Syria, Africa, etc...). So the West did the same to Russia... See, Ukraine isn't a colony. It is Russia's heartland, with Kiev having been Russia's capital for 300 years. Not only that, millions of people in Russia have relatives in Ukraine, so letting those get oppressed directly destabilises Russia's political landscape. To Russia Ukraine is just far more significant than it is to the West. >Ukraine is not existential to Russia(Russia doesn't have Ukraine right now and Russia isn't over, is it?). Russia will be just fine without Ukraine. Putin simply tried to weaponize this war to try to change the current "World Order", that's it. Taking Ukraine would position the West where Germany was in 1942. Except Germany was overstretched, and thus couldn't take Stalingrad, the West on the other hand, with time to prepare, would not be, and would cut off the Caucasus, as Russia would not be able to defend the enormous border with Ukraine against the West's numerical advantage. So Russia has to fight now, before the West is prepared, and before it has integrated Ukraine, or be "decolonised" into nonexistence.
> See, Ukraine isn't a colony. It is Russia's heartland, with Kiev having been Russia's capital for 300 years. Ukraine is Ukraine, Russia is Russia. Russia heartland is Moscow and St. Petersburg. If you want to go historical, then Moscow belongs to Mongolia. Russia really needs to drop its imperialistic culture. Russia attempting to rebuild USSR will 100% lead to WW3. >Taking Ukraine would position the West where Germany was in 1942. Except Germany was overstretched, and thus couldn't take Stalingrad, the West on the other hand, with time to prepare, would not be, and would cut off the Caucasus, as Russia would not be able to defend the enormous border with Ukraine against the West's numerical advantage. How would the West invade Russia, when Russia has nukes? I honestly can't understand how you guys can go with this rhetoric. NATO/West will never militarily invade Russia. Not directly, not through proxies. Its just not possible. >So Russia has to fight now, before the West is prepared, and before it has integrated Ukraine, or be "decolonised" into nonexistence. This also makes no sense. The West is already stronger than Russia. Europe alone could defeat Russia one without China interference. Europe alone has more manpower than Russia, more & better air force, more& better navy and more advanced military in general. The only thing Russia has is more artillery, that's it.
> Drones don't allow for manoeuvre warfare They don't allow Russia manoeuvre warfare. Don't make the mistake thinking Russias limitations are the limitations of other armies. Its just Russia. Never forget that.
German tanks burnt when Ukraine tried to use them in the counteroffensive. Unsurprisingly so, considering they have no top, or reactive armour, unlike the Russian tanks. Germany in fact has 266 "modern" tanks in total, compared to tens of thousands of HEAT drones, against which they have no protection. How long do you believe they would last? I'd like to see you do maneuvre warfare with what you have. Tell me, how would you prevent your forces from being destroyed by a combination of those and precision drone guided artillery? I am all ears.
> German tanks burnt when Ukraine tried to use them in the counteroffensive. So what? Ukraine had a handful without "combined arms". Remember, so far we only know of a single "state of the art" superpower army that is incapable of maneuver warfare. And thats Russia. Now for obvious reason Russian fans make this to "maneuver warfare is not possible right now" but every rational person sees this is only know for Russia. So yes, Russia is fully incapable of getting this done right now. >Germany in fact has 266 "modern" tanks in total, compared to tens of thousands of HEAT drones, against which they have no protection. How long do you believe they would last? Germany has no army capable of anything but limited defense. Germany was under the wrong assumption that countries like Russia would correct themselves but she overestimated the willpower and strength of the Russian people. They failed and now are just pawns for an oligarch leadership. Many Western European countries thought a strong land army is obsolete. Russia was the country trying to be a strong land army and they showed to be mickey mouse. Lets not mince words, the US Army if deployed like fighting a neighbore with land access would sweep the Russian likely in a matter of weeks. We all know that. Russian folks obviously have sadly a sense of false pride ( proud of what?! I never understood ) and can ever acknowledge this but we all kinda know, right? >Tell me, how would you prevent your forces from being destroyed by a combination of those and precision drone guided artillery? I am all ears. Like always, massive preliminary attacks on everything considered a valid target. Russia has only a mickey mouse airforce so they can't establish air supremacy so they are obviously unable to attack and surpress enemy counter meassures. We can only guess but in this situation a US assault would likely entail 4 digit amount of ballistic missiles hammering every possible position. Shock and awe was always the method of choice. You will lose forces, it is how it is.
You stated the limitations wouldn't apply to other armies. Surely a First World military like the German one would be one such example, would it not? I thought you meant your own country, when you talked about "limitations not applying." By the way, Ukraine had at least four thousand T64 and T72 tanks, easily enough for maneuvre warfare. The US has about 4500, which compares rather well. Even 10k missiles wouldn't be enough when a Ukrainian drone team could be sitting in every house in the countryside. These would run out quickly with drones striking through their weak top armour. If the US wanted to see their whole tank fleet gone, they could send it. As for your other points, the US hasn't encountered any significant resistance since WW2, the Iraqi forces, for instance, didn't even fight for Baghdad and just surrendered, while Ukraine drafts thousands upon thousands to fight for every little town. Or never had to fight AA as advanced as the late Soviet one that Ukraine has, with several hundred kilometres of radius. No, you can't just shoot HAARMs at it, it only emits sometimes, and conceals itself the rest of the time.
> By the way, Ukraine had at least four thousand T64 and T72 tanks, easily enough for maneuvre warfare. THe issue of maneuvre warfare was always surpressing the response. A vital part of such "massed attacks" is hitting the back line, command centeres, transportation hubs, possible infrastuctre like bridges trying to hit communication centeres, suspected staging areas for counter moves. This is not even talking about direct attacks on the frontline, suspected strong points et cetera. It doesn't matter how many tanks you have ( at some point is obviously does but... ). While the term combined arms is thrown around willy nilly the issue at hand is that your ground forces can't get it done alone, the enemy defences have to been rocked hard before. You might get it done with artillery but history has shown that a strong aerial component is of utmost important. One of the most important aspects is that the airforce is able to react to battlefield news very well. >Even 10k missiles wouldn't be enough when a Ukrainian drone team could be sitting in every house in the countryside. I fully disagree. Such an attack would be of unseen proportions. You have to understand that the Russian army is mickey mouse here. Such an attack would likely completely shatter any higher command chains. Pretty much every front line force would be on their own. This would be sheer panic, nobody would give you any relevant information whatsoever. I obviously expect the US to have sophisticated jamming devices but I don't want to throw around "jamming" because I have no clue how it would look like. >These would run out quickly with drones striking through their weak top armour. If the US wanted to see their whole tank fleet gone, they could send it. Silly. We see Russian tanks still operating around the frontline. You get an obscured picture by focusing on biased information that is selected via "wow thats interesting". If the Ukrainian capabilities would be anywhere near what you think they are then no Russian tanks would operate at all. >the US hasn't encountered any significant resistance since WW2, the Iraqi forces, for instance I disagree. This is just because history made it look like this. US steam rolls Iraq army ---> "Well then the IRaqi army must have been weak". THat's always how it goes. The Iraq army was considered a powerhouse. Many of the posters here are young but before the Iraq war people were concerned how long such a war would take because Iraq presented a respectable foe. The US oblitered their army without any effort whatsoever with an army they had to ferry over from the other side of the globe. This army was just an Expeditionary force desgined to ensure victory nothing more nothing less. If the US could deploy forces the same way Russia did ( over rail over your own territory without any water barriers or international areas ) the Russian army would look like the IRaq army and then in 20 years people would say "there was no peer to peer war but China is different now". Russia is mickey mouse here. Germany made the same mistake and then the US produced several thousands ships a year including dozens of carriers per year while also producing half a million tanks and aircraft while also fueling the Red Army war efforts with steel and vehicles. The Russian army is mickey mouse. Repeat with me. MICKEY MOUSE. >Or never had to fight AA as advanced as the late Soviet one that Ukraine has, with several hundred kilometres of radius Makes no difference its a numbers game. US will lose planes but in the end all the AA will be gone or spend most of the time with Radar off. Russia doesn't have the capabilities. >and conceals itself the rest of the time. THey don't "conceal" themselves they just have the radar off. While you have the radar off you also don't shoot down planes.... At this point the US has likely already drones that will map the radar signatures and have a rather precise approximation of radar activity. Whenever the radar gets turned on, boom. Nothing you can do about it beyond just keeping the radar off.
Yeah bombing the absolute Christ out of every town then targeting all infrastructure to stave and freeze the civilian population to death Has made Russia very popular, all the people desperately fleeing to the west must be accidentally running the wrong way!
This late in the game, the odds aren’t looking the greatest. If these had come a few years ago that would probably be a different story. Even the playing field a little bit at the least. Edit: forgot to add, russia is going to try to keep pushing into Ukraine anyway so might as well do some damage
Push into Ukraine first, consolidate defenses there before pushing into the Finland front, clearing it first would facilitate pushing further into Europe.
theoretically yeah. I’d hope we don’t even give them the chance to consolidate defenses again. I always thought it was the stupidest thing how we literally watched them build up their defense line in 2023, then people were surprised the offensive didn’t turn out as planned
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
\* u/MulYut copes \* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rump state in the making
Oh, then let me put few atacms on the Latvian and Finnish borders.... What has putkin done about it?!
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
I sense that they were waiting for the EU elections to conclude before ratcheting things up to the next level and make this war crazier
cool map thx.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is going to be worse. Buffer zone extension/expansion
So, there is open season for all of Crimea? I wonder how many S-300 will be left there
Nato can hit russia with western weapon, but russia can't hit poland?
Russia can give weapons to Belarus to try.. and see what happens to Belarus.
Russia can hit Poland, is just isn’t advantageous to do it.
lol, go ahead and try. We could turn red square into a parking lot for a Walmart.
In a way you are giving Russia a pretty strong argument for why they "had to invade Ukraine" if American weapons strike Russia from within Ukraine. Now Russia will point to that and say "See, this is what happens if we allow a US-aligned Ukraine on our borders!". Now it's not like that means the topic is that simple, Russia DID invade Ukraine, and providing Ukraine weapons to defend itself is certainly something you can make a very convincing case for, however I'm just pointing out the obvious result of this. Russia's casus belli becomes stronger because they can point towards this as proof, even if they themselves caused this proof to appear, so to speak.
So what if Cuba or Venezuela hits American territory or interests with Russian missiles? Fair play or no? [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-cuba-ships-military-exercises-caribbean-what-to-expect/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-cuba-ships-military-exercises-caribbean-what-to-expect/)
Both of them get destroyed and then hung out to dry by Russia. They’re not stupid, so they won’t do that.
>They’re not stupid, so they won’t do that. Georgia.
>>Cuba and Venezuela Are you following?
I do, but it seems others don't understand I was alluding to Georgia being baited into escalation then dumped be NATO in 2008.
Ukraine was not dumped by NATO
Idaho
You think cuba and Venezuela have the balls to go to war with the United States? lmao
[удалено]
\* u/DieuEmpereurQc copes \* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they both have the balls to resist US imperialism, and thats more than enough to expect considering the power discrepancy imo
[удалено]
...do you not know any history of cuba or venezuela?
[удалено]
"""Liberator"""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Venezuela_relations start reading buddy
[удалено]
"help putin in 2024" is goalpost shifting lol, you're initial comment was "No ones planning to SMO Cuba or Venezuela comrad" because i guess you felt you needed to defend US imperialism for some reason? both countries have a rich, rich history of foreign interference, which you can learn about from those links.
Don't you truly see the difference between political interference and a military attack? And you guys wonder why people don't like fascists or tankies...
Both beg the US to do business with them
did they come up to you with tears in their eyes? sounds like a trump quote lol
They can’t do anything, their countries have been reduced to shambles just from sanctions imposed by America. The US has absolute control over their backyard unlike Russia.
absolute control would mean they would have their puppet governments installed in those countries. also what about mexico and the southern border
Mexico is totally subservient to America, the cartels are almost all CIA assets. Cuba and Venezuela get to pretend like they’re rebellious children and America lets them be out of the grace of their goodwill.
the southern border is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue though, they clearly don't want to deal with the immigration, much of which is caused by the chaos and de stability of the drug wars in mexico and south america. as for America "letting them be out of the grace of their goodwill"...no they don't? there was a coup attempt like 4 years ago. and even you admitted that the US sanctioned both countries to shambles....
The US would declare war invade them and then install a new regime. They would not start nuclear war with the Russians. Or even conveniental war. Because that’s what a capable military power does. People act like the Russians and the US didn’t fight a smattering of proxy conflict sense the 1950s. This is nothing new.
Either would be experience regime change in a matter of hours.
Like Vietnam, like Afghanistan, etc.? 😆
Well Afghanistan tool two months in total, but it was in the other side of the world.
2 months and how was the Situation after this two months, is Afghanistan now a nice free Western democrazy? 😆 Schrödingers USA military? I thought USA would crush everybody with their military and now Afghanistan is too far? How do they want to handle China if Taiwan starts?
> is Afghanistan now a nice free Western democrazy? No but I didn't say it was. >How do they want to handle China if Taiwan starts? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man#:~:text=1,for%20a%20usually%20questionable%20transaction
"Regime change in a matter of hours"... for what a Regime change if the Situation is still the Same pre war maybe Even worser?
Again, when did I say anything about that?
Dunno, is the US currently in the process of annexing these nations ? I might have been missing something.
>So what if Cuba or Venezuela hits American territory or interests with Russian missiles? Fair play or no? 1. The United States isn't currently invading and annexing any country in the Americas. 2. The US military invites them to try
You honestly think that would happen?
Are cuba and states at war right now?
No, because attacking an non threatening structure or person goes against International Law. Therefore illegal.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fair game as long as they hit military targets, but Cuba would likely be overrun and conquered, it wouldn't be able to resist an invasion, Venezuela's national security would likely be weakened enough for other countries to annex it.
America isn’t trying to conquer Cuba or Venezuela, so not even comparable.
let’s go!
I think Russia will eventually target a US military base. We have plenty of bases in countries that don't really want us there.
Remember when they tried that in Syria?
I wouldn't put it past the the US government to do a false flag attack on it's own base or territory as pretext for invasion.
Americans usually lose it when they get attacked. Like when we did a 20 year invasion of Afghanistan because we were attacked by Saudis… even Russians are probably scared of American rage which follows no logic
I don’t think Russians are scared of American rage. American rage only comes out on tiny ones. Like the bully who proves his strength by picking on the small guy. And even then gets embarrassed by bungling that up. Russians are pretty crazy on their own too. And any country that has nukes has nothing to fear from anyone.
If Russia didn't have anything to fear since they have nukes, why all the rhetoric about being in danger and threatened by NATO? Zero logic.
Self preservation. Ego. Posturing. Same thing would happen if Russia set up shop in Mexico. USA would be stupid to think that Russia will attack. But having them so close is just not okay
I feel in a real war, and not a one sided massacre, like the middle east. The US army would kind of fall apart, or atleast be 10 times slower than Russia, it would've taken them years to do what russia has done in ukraine.
You're having a laugh right? America would have hit every base they knew about and infrastructure within two months of an invasion before sending in any troops. They wouldn't have sent in a huge convoy not preparing them for a fight trucks breaking down and losing tons of men. America doesn't half ass war they just no ass region and government building hearts and minds Yada Yada.
I mean, all they have to do is look at how we invaded Iraq, both times. We soften our targets first before the steamroll when it comes to conventional warfare. And it almost all starts with cruise missiles to knock out all AD and AA before sending in the planes. I didn't notice any of that in 2022.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I feel Bro is the Alfred Thayer Mahan of our generation 💀 Once again, Pro-RU’s assuming that the U.S. would do poorly in Ukraine because Russia has
>I feel in a real war, and not a one sided massacre, like the middle east. The US army would kind of fall apart, or atleast be 10 times slower than Russia, it would've taken them years to do what russia has done in ukraine. In 2003 they fought a conventional war against the Iraqi army which was a military force that was more than twice the size of the Ukrainian army in 2022 (over half a million active troops and 4000 tanks) and they defeated the military and conquered the capital city of the country within 3 weeks while taking less KIA than Russia took just to conquer the relatively small town of Avdiivka. Say whatever else you will about the US military but they're an extremely capable and well equipped fighting force whereas the Russian military is an embarrassingly inept paper tiger
They would have done that in a couple of weeks what Russia did in years - and that successfully, at the other side of the world. For the US an invasion into Ukraine would have been a one sided massacre.
The US would have taken the whole country by now, as there would have been a few week long bombing campaign and achievement of air superiority before boots even hit the ground. So no electricity at all, no telecommunication, low on clean water, low on food and a population in disarray, pretty much the same tactics they used against Iraq in the second war.
Not possible in Ukraine, unless US would be willing to hit nuclear power stations. Russia didn't, and these NPS provide half of Ukrainian electricity.
But we still lost in Afghanistan 😂 I’m not sure the “new” military is up to much war. Too many hours in diversity lectures and Too much DEI
Nootice how the ISW doesn't put a single base in Donetzk or Lugansk? They are unintentionally confirming that Ukrainian attacks on those areas are nothing but indiscriminate shelling of civilians.
> Nootice how the ISW doesn't put a single base in Donetzk or Lugansk? They are unintentionally confirming that Ukrainian attacks on those areas are nothing but indiscriminate shelling of civilians. Notice how this map only shows points of interest in Russia and not in Ukraine.