Comments
HartInCMajor t1_j6gg8u7 wrote
Let's not put the cart before the horse. In a perfect world every piece of gear would magically be where its needed when its needed. In a ideal world the gear gets to properly trained personnel who will utilize the equipment in a proficient manner. The best we can do is aim for an ideal world.
DarkWangster t1_j6gjmdn wrote
The problem is that Ukraine needs A LOT more to even hold their ground. Russia is overwhelming them in the East right now and a few dozen/hundred tanks aren't going to make a big enough difference. And we can't wave a magic wand and get Ukraine everything that it would need. The situation is probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Djentleman420 t1_j6gk63f wrote
War and shit eh
Web_Automatic t1_j6gkm1b wrote
Valid, I get that but still crazy that even with all this support, they are getting blasted. And this isn't even if Belarus joins in, which is very close to their capital.
brooksram t1_j6gks4t wrote
I'm not sure if you have seen, But Ukraine is actually at war right now.
There are hundreds of thousands of armed soldiers in their country, actively trying to blow all their shit up and kill them.
/s ..... OP , this one's for you.
[deleted] t1_j6gkv1x wrote
[removed]
Lazorgunz t1_j6gkvsl wrote
russia alone lost more troops in a year than all allies in korea, vietnam and the gulf.
the shit we send will get destroyed eventually, especially shit that goes to the front lines. our APCs, IFV, even MBTs will be lost en masse after they are sent, because they fight until they are destroyed.
Its not about getting through the gear we give, its making sure the toll on the ruzzians is way higher per lost piece of equipment, and in that regard, its working
the war is at an intensity we in the west are just no longer familiar with
Rexia2022 t1_j6glssl wrote
You'd be amazed at the difference technological advantage makes. 10 to 1 numbers don't mean anything when nothing you have can damage the Challenger 2 coming right at you.
Ceratisa t1_j6gm1bs wrote
Russia isn't overwhelming them. Russia has only recently had its first victory in months, yet it was over a small non-vital town. The battle took months and they have virtually destroyed the entire town to do it. This was at the cost of thousands and thousands of Russiana.
HorrificAnalInjuries t1_j6gm59k wrote
This was part of what the Germans were hoping for when they pressed the Battle of the Bulge. There are Kingtigers that to date have little pot marks on their hulls and turrets where some poor, surprised GI opened up on the beast with their .50 cal.
[deleted] t1_j6gm7tj wrote
[removed]
1111111 t1_j6gmdzy wrote
They are at war
[deleted] t1_j6gmkld wrote
[removed]
brooksram t1_j6gmo91 wrote
Could have fooled me.
brooksram t1_j6gmyf7 wrote
Good lord. Are you always like this or did someone just kill your cat or something? This app you joined is literally created for discussion. If you're not up for it, and it appears you may not be, why are you here?
[deleted] t1_j6gn4qt wrote
[removed]
TazBaz t1_j6goevx wrote
They’re getting drip fed heavy equipment vs the thousands of Russian tanks that’re rolling out from Russia’s reserves. 12 HIMARS and (promised) 24 western MBT’s really aren’t that significant vs thousands of Russian tanks and artillery.
Scary-Poptart t1_j6gote3 wrote
Not what Lanchester's law says.
macross1984 t1_j6gp60k wrote
Supplies will be sent but in no way at a speed Ukraine want and need. Ukraine will have to hold on and if possible push Russians back with what western weapons and supplies it has on hand.
Scary-Poptart t1_j6gpben wrote
Not necessarily that simple. I don't think Ukraine has really tried going on the offensive that much during this war(edit: *warm) winter, because of the soft ground. I think they're accumulating forces for a rapid push in Spring. Still, ammunition is very easy to blow through, russia has stockpiles from the Soviet Union.
HuntSafe2316 t1_j6gprqp wrote
What? Russia's going on the offensive in the east?
youkmowwhatyouarefor t1_j6gq7j1 wrote
They should quit selling them
[deleted] t1_j6gqppb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6gqyz1 wrote
[removed]
Fearless_Beyond_3924 t1_j6gs5ww wrote
Weapons don’t magically appear like an Amazon delivery. Time for negotiations before Russia drops the bomb on the nuclear power plant
flopsyplum t1_j6gsfvz wrote
>Russia is overwhelming them in the East right now
I don't see any Russian flags being hoisted anywhere except Soledar.
flopsyplum t1_j6gsjzo wrote
>10 to 1 numbers don't mean anything when nothing you have can damage the Challenger 2 coming right at you.
Anti-tank mines?
[deleted] t1_j6gsrfr wrote
[removed]
AmberHeards t1_j6gt5m9 wrote
And quite possibly even more Ukrainians unfortunately (if you're referring to Soledar). There were a bunch of videos of Ukrainian soldiers critical of their leadership for not pulling out soon enough, some featuring hordes of Ukrainian corpses. Check out the UkraineRussiaReport subreddit if you want, NSFL-warning though.
Nerevarine91 t1_j6gtgqj wrote
Those are a risk, but I do think the original commenter’s point has some merit if you consider the value of modern optics systems vs the old ones used on most Russian tanks. In that scenario, it really is a 10 to 1 increase in value
Nerevarine91 t1_j6gtjnq wrote
The Belarusian Army has about 10,000 professional soldiers, and a budget that’s literally only 1% of the Russian military budget
Nerevarine91 t1_j6gtmne wrote
No negotiation with terrorists, no rewarding aggression
Rexia2022 t1_j6gunui wrote
At best that takes the treads off, but we're talking about blunting a Russian offensive and you don't mine ahead of your offensive push for obvious reasons.
RedBlueTundra t1_j6guvmf wrote
In terms of speed I think the best solution is more Soviet equipment or modernised variants of Soviet equipment from former Warsaw Pact members and potentially other nations that also use Soviet equipment if they can be persuaded.
Western equipment is going to take time both with training and establishing logistical links. The Soviet equipment would be a good stop quick gap measure until the more sophisticated Western equipment is ready to roll.
Abizuil t1_j6gxea6 wrote
A slow grinding one, but yes, they are on the offensive.
superx89 t1_j6gxkn3 wrote
It’s a losing war for Ukraine
Abizuil t1_j6gxokn wrote
Issue is that the US/EU have bought and shipped all the Warsaw Pact kit they could get their hands on already. They are sending NATO equipment because there is no more Warsaw Pact gear that is not inside of Russia or will be spared by their current owners.
SuperRedShrimplet t1_j6h01pv wrote
Ukraine were advised by the US to strategically withdraw as it wasn't worth defending but obviously there is a morale element here to which I think was something Ukraine didn't want to lose, so I can kind of understand why they also defended it as hard as they did.
SuperRedShrimplet t1_j6h08ah wrote
This was always going to happen. This is likely going to be a multi-year war. Some even project that it will last up to a decade. And even when it's "over" it's going to have generational impacts as well.
ssepaulette t1_j6h1qyo wrote
Soledar has pretty big strategic implications though. The salt mine allows men, equipment and ammo to be housed and transported safely.
Provides an important springboard to cut supply routes to Bakhmut and Siversk, and the link between the 2 frontline cities. As we are speaking, Bakhmut is dangerously close to being encircled and if the Russians tighten the noose around the city successfully, a significant force of Ukraine’s best troops could get cut off and potentially destroyed, leaving a big hole in the front.
If that happens, Ukraine can forget about retaking any territories ever again, even with the western tanks. People need to understand the harsh reality.
ShowMeTheToes t1_j6h2agg wrote
If Ukraine starts paying taxes they can call for anything they'd like.. Until then, shut up.
Baneken t1_j6h5s4u wrote
Abrams in desert storm... It was a complete slaughter for the 'modernized' Iraqi T-72s, they literally couldn't even see their enemy before they were already hit.
And that was 30 years ago, proposed Challengers, Leos and Leclercs are much more modern than those American Abrams were back then and Abrams itself has had a few iterations to it since then.
The Soviet-era tanks Russia is still using won't have a chance and I'm not sure how many are T-90s or newer from the ones they actually field.
Baneken t1_j6h61i4 wrote
If the war keeps going more than 2 years It's going to be the end of Russia... Assuming Ukraine can hold as well as it has done so far.
[deleted] t1_j6h6q16 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6h7mh0 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6ha802 wrote
[removed]
HurryPast386 t1_j6hbaf5 wrote
Looking at the current territory map, I'm not seeing any significant gains by Russia currently that make up for the months of losses they've endured.
Also, lol, you're nuts if you think a few hundred modern tanks (combined with modern artillery and missiles) aren't just going to completely decimate any land-based offensive by the Russian army. Russia has a serious problem. Either they win it now or they'll never take any territory again once the modern tanks are in play. They know this too.
It's just all over once Ukraine gets F-16's too, because they'll have something Russia never had in enough numbers: Precision munitions.
ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbe2s wrote
T90m had better fcs than many western contemporary tanks, western tanks have many advantages but this ain't it chief.
sus_menik t1_j6hbgb0 wrote
Have you checked the map recently? It is pretty clear that Russians regained overall initiative, even at places like Kremiina there were some advances.
[deleted] t1_j6hbiyi wrote
[removed]
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbjgn wrote
From what I’ve heard, target acquisition and optics are by far the single most important difference between truly modern tanks and everything else, when it comes to battlefield performance
sus_menik t1_j6hbjvk wrote
There were multiple towns captured since then. They have advanced quite a bit past Soledar already, but even more so in the south of Bakhmut.
Turbofox23 t1_j6hbk3x wrote
Maybe in some russian textbook, not in reality however
ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbltn wrote
T72 export model with hand crank turrets... completely lobotomised compared to the domestic model with night sights. Do a bit of reading on desert storm: it was wardens air war 'operation instant thunder' that lead to such a curbstomp. Many military commentators view this as being a rare perfect storm unlikely to reoccur any time soon.
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbmm8 wrote
T-90M has a modern optics package, but that’s not exactly the tank being used the majority of Russian units. It’s also worth noting that those were built with imported components, and there are reports from inside Russia that even relatively modern tanks are now being sent to the front with older packages.
Turbofox23 t1_j6hbotv wrote
Vehicles and armaments are meant to be expendable, people, on the other hand, you can't replace them so quickly.
sus_menik t1_j6hbp6l wrote
I'm still not sure how that will be different in terms of vulnerability to artillery and MLRS. They are just as susceptible to being hit.
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hbsxc wrote
I understand that, but it’s on a tank-to-tank comparison that the difference stands out
ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hbud9 wrote
As the conflict goes on we will see a decline in stopgap tanks like meme36 and an increase in refurb or newbuild t90m with increased domestic economic mobilisations. I guarantee there are currently more t90m on the front than there are competitior Western tanks.
sus_menik t1_j6hc3ow wrote
My point is that a lot of the advantages of the equipment can be irrelevant considering other shortcomings in the overall capability.
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hc6vv wrote
I mean, there currently aren’t many Western tanks on the ground in Ukraine at all, so that bet seems extremely safe. However, I would be very interested in seeing the exact percentages, because my understanding is that the vast majority of Russian tanks in Ukraine are variants of the T-72, with no indication of that really changing.
Lauris024 t1_j6hc84d wrote
"so you managed to kill 20000 of your own men to capture a destroyed city that had a population of 10000?"
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hc9nh wrote
If they both have the same vulnerability to artillery, then I don’t see why that’s really a shortcoming. Like in an equation, the same variable on either side balances out.
ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hcfax wrote
Time will tell, maybe you are right and they consider increased numbers of the older model instead of lesser numbers of the newer. Most tanks this conflict will have been taken out by rpg atgm or artillery as opposed to pop culture tank duels, so I doubt we will see many resolutions to the dick measurig on here with abrams / challenger / leopard vs T-xyz.
Nerevarine91 t1_j6hcjq6 wrote
Who knows? I can only say what I’ve heard is going on now. As for what they’ll do in the future, I have no idea
kotwica42 t1_j6he6ed wrote
Things go quick when they're being resold on the black market.
lacb1 t1_j6hfos2 wrote
Remember that state of the art Russian drone the Ukrainians captured that had a fucking Cannon DSLR camera in it? Yeah. They don't have "world beating" anything. It was smart for NATO to take them seriously right up until we had proof that they're full of shit. But now we have literally tonnes of proof, and it's all being dismantled and studied. Whatever surprises the Russians may have had for NATO aren't really surprises anymore.
Turbofox23 t1_j6hfv17 wrote
Plus, they don't produce anything apart from AKs and artillery shells, every piece of any advanced tech (chips, IR-matrix, monitors, optics) is either Chinese, US-made, or bought from European companies.
Edit: or scrapped from stolen washing machines
eypandabear t1_j6hgfc4 wrote
You have a completely warped understanding of attrition rates in a “proper” war between nation states, which this is.
Baneken t1_j6hhb3c wrote
And you expect the current Russian ones to be that much better when a single good hit from Javelin will literally toss the whole tank into air? Russia had matching modern tanks but they're few or nothing but vaporware & concepts. What they've been using are outdated holdovers from the '90s with some mandatory upgrades.
People have already been whining how some odd 200 tanks ain't doing much... When it's not about the numbers but how you deploy them in the field -200 tanks in one sector supported by infantry & artillery is a lot, peppered throughout the country -not so much.
alucardu t1_j6hhx36 wrote
> and you don't mine ahead of your offensive push for obvious reasons.
Next week. Russians angry at Ukrain because the ran into their own "advancing" mines...
[deleted] t1_j6hinpu wrote
ZealousidealWash5800 t1_j6hj1ul wrote
You're not doing much to argue against that sending 31 abrams isn't going to result in another desert storm...
Javelin would also total an abrams, what's your point?
The design age argument doesn't hold water either: Abrams is 1970s, Leopard is 1980s and Challenger II is 90s. I'm not sure what you're getting at there unless you're arguing all they are using are literally produced in the 90s? As if they've done nothing but produce ladas and nothing else for 30 years.
Also lmao comparing t90m and t72b3 to hand crank tanks? Pull the other one it's got bells on it.
sutrauboju t1_j6hjmgo wrote
Why do you think the population matters here? In war armies fight over strategic points on the map. Actual town population is irrelevant.
MrHazard1 t1_j6hjr8x wrote
So if they close off the mine and fortify their flanks, they can hold out and kill a lot more russian meat being thrown at them until they need to retreat those good troops a bit further back, where they can continue the fight.
I don't think russia will be able to maintain the pressure for long enough, until they need to start drawing children and the pressure in kremlin starts to rise. Play the long game and make them pay heavily for every cm they get. And when they have it, come back with better NATO equipment and trained soldiers
Lauris024 t1_j6hk9yh wrote
It's absolutely nuts for a modern army to lose 20000 men over some point which isn't even THAT important. Still don't see the problem? Let me put it more clearly - US lost around 7000 men in both, Iraq and Afghanistan war, combined, that lasted many, many years
sutrauboju t1_j6hko9b wrote
US has a better army than Russia is your take on this? Amazing insight tbh.
whyevenmakeoc t1_j6hkwnz wrote
Hmm, Afghanistan was a trillion dollar war, how many tax dollars did the Afghans pay? Ukraine is a drop in the ocean for the US military budget.
[deleted] t1_j6hkwqh wrote
[deleted]
HappyVegetable21 t1_j6hl9pn wrote
All this wasted money and equipment for a country that’s just going to lose anyways, such a shame.
[deleted] t1_j6hlif3 wrote
[deleted]
OneSky8953 t1_j6hm274 wrote
I mean, sure I can call my local representatives to give more to you guys, but before that I actually would love to see you appreciate or even recognize South Korea. We gave significant amount of financial aids to Ukraine since day 1 but it seems Ukraine hasn't give any credits to us lol
[deleted] t1_j6hmcay wrote
[deleted]
SuperRedShrimplet t1_j6hmq9v wrote
Unfortunately for Ukraine, historically Russia fights until it can't and their MO is to just keep throwing bodies at the problem.
EfoDom t1_j6hmtrd wrote
Russia has already lost by underestimating Ukraine. The future of Russia is looking bleak and is getting bleaker by the day.
HuntSafe2316 t1_j6hn3au wrote
Unfortunately, Russia is extremely determined and will fight to the last man
ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6hn4ye wrote
This could have been foreseen. The west has been drip-feeding equipment to maximize Russian losses, at the cost of Ukrainian lives, and at the risk of falling behind, as we now see.
[deleted] t1_j6hncnu wrote
[deleted]
lonigus t1_j6hngmb wrote
Most EX-soviet EU countries sold their tanks to Africa, Asia and South America after the collapse of USSR. The ones that are left are rotting away in hangars or are scrap metal.
ShowMeTheToes t1_j6hocse wrote
That's for OUR military budget. Why are we paying for someone else's military budget? Don't you see a problem with this?
Midnight2012 t1_j6hohcn wrote
They arnt using the mines like underground roads. I think you have the wrong idea.
[deleted] t1_j6hpx95 wrote
[deleted]
bfhurricane t1_j6hq4my wrote
The long game is more beneficial to Russia than Ukraine. They have more men and material to draw out a long conflict. That’s why Ukraine wants to (and must) win this decisively soon.
OneSky8953 t1_j6hqznn wrote
where is the one for South Korea, though?
[deleted] t1_j6hr24t wrote
[deleted]
justlaw150 t1_j6hrt4m wrote
They have a war map? Lol
NickyRD t1_j6hrwcc wrote
The purpose of the military budget is to mitigate risk to ones country. The risk to America is being significantly weakened for the cost of sending old equipment to an ally. In terms of affecting Russian military. Gathering gold standard data. And creating new allies and stealing a spot on the game board. It's a massive bargain for America right now
Katana_sized_banana t1_j6hsw2h wrote
What an absurd comment. The west gains nothing from maximizing Russian losses unless they wanted to invade, which isn't the case. The EU has also nothing to gain from a longer war as it's economically taxing. You also make it sound like the West is causing casualties, while Russia is the actual invader here.
justlaw150 t1_j6ht8tc wrote
Damn that’s the first time I’ve been shown anything like that, thx
[deleted] t1_j6htiul wrote
[deleted]
ShowMeTheToes t1_j6htpqp wrote
Where are you seeing that it's old equipment?
[deleted] t1_j6hx6sj wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6i0cle wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6i0j3p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6i0kvj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6i0qo0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6i16sn wrote
[deleted]
EfoDom t1_j6i1nu9 wrote
My dude has been living under a rock for the past year. Russian demographics is the main one.
[deleted] t1_j6i1o0p wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6i1qsr wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6i20x5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6i2787 wrote
[deleted]
Nerevarine91 t1_j6i3l4s wrote
Russia has the power to end this war at any time by simply stopping their invasion.
[deleted] t1_j6i3yaj wrote
[removed]
lollypatrolly t1_j6i4y95 wrote
Old soviet gear is simply not sufficient as it doesn't confer a technological advantage over Russian gear. It's a stopgap measure, nothing more.
What Ukraine actually needs is modern NATO equipment such as another 500+ Bradleys, some latest block F-16s, ATACMS and any artillery piece we can scrounge up. This war is not going away any time soon, and the sooner we realize that Ukrainian victory requires a serious investment in equipment the better.
Enabling Ukraine to, at scale, strike targets deep inside Russia will help to level the playing field, and this should be the absolute highest priority in terms of equipment delivery.
[deleted] t1_j6i5264 wrote
[deleted]
lollypatrolly t1_j6i5cwz wrote
The core point is true though, this current drip-feeding is strategically unsound if the goal is for Ukraine to win and Russia to lose. It makes no sense from a military perspective. The only thing we achieve by pussyfooting around is drawing out the conflict, so we should commit fully and provide everything they need.
[deleted] t1_j6i731v wrote
[deleted]
Nerevarine91 t1_j6i7juq wrote
BUT WHAT ABOUT (non-sequitur I never voiced any support for whatsoever)
NickyRD t1_j6i7wj6 wrote
It's old in so much that a lot of the machinery is undergoing refitting or replacement, or does not fit anticipated future theatre like disputed islands etc.
And some of it, though in use, is just literally old. The M2 Bradley is 40 years old and current model was updated 20 years ago. New machinery is being sought to replace the Bradley and Abrams etc.
That's not to say new equipment isn't being sent. It is! And again it is getting a lot done for it's money. It's the best sales pitch there is.
[deleted] t1_j6i7z3t wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6i8798 wrote
[deleted]
ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6i9sci wrote
I don't suppose you can offer an alternative explanation for the slow drip-feed of support?
I'm not seeing any absurdity to comment on, sorry. What do you mean?
Didn't say anything about who's doing the killing - that's not really disputable...
LordRumBottoms t1_j6ibaiy wrote
While we all want to help, the logistics are massive and you can't arm a country over night. Imagine all the flights and heavy equipment to gas, train folks on, even the munitions need to be moved. I think we're trying as fast as we can while also managing our own shit.
Katana_sized_banana t1_j6idj5d wrote
>I don't suppose you can offer an alternative explanation for the slow drip-feed of support?
At least 3.
-
You can't send equipment without training. There's no point in sending NATO equipment if they are used to Russian.
-
The more equipment Ukraine has, the more could technically be stolen by Russians. And you don't want that.
-
Own interests and there are quite a few. Like every country's own defense, money for replacement, caution to prevent escalation, secrets to not make military strategies too obvious.
>I'm not seeing any absurdity to comment on, sorry. What do you mean?
Oh please, you know exactly how you worded it and I already explained in the comment above.
>Didn't say anything about who's doing the killing - that's not really disputable...
Reread what you wrote. You sure there's zero blame in it? "Drip feeding"means neglected, for example. "At the cost of Ukraine life" so who is at fault if you bring it up? Subliminal message in my eyes.
Pinguinwithgatling t1_j6ie1zo wrote
Ah aircraft carrier too and let's change the flag cos two colours it's just too boring make it three colours with lots of stars!!
lollypatrolly t1_j6iegcb wrote
Why would they want an aircraft carrier? They have airfields, which are like unsinkable aircraft carriers.
Pinguinwithgatling t1_j6iel93 wrote
They are big and cool, have you ever been in one? It's awesome
ralfp t1_j6if23u wrote
Belarus is a joke of an army that still includes horse-pulled interwar-era artillery in their tallies.
[deleted] t1_j6ikt8l wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6imn4b wrote
Walken_Shoebaru t1_j6inabc wrote
90% Russian propaganda.
NominallyRecursive t1_j6iofa4 wrote
Poland just declared they’re sending a bunch of (what are in effect) upgraded T-72s, so there’s that at least.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/poland-to-send-60-modernised-pt-91-tanks-to-ukraine/101902426
[deleted] t1_j6ita4a wrote
[removed]
ErikTheAngry t1_j6j2ulz wrote
Russia realizing that the Leo2 and Abrams are gonna fuck up their invasion plans even more than previous weapon shipments already have.
This is a panic offensive against Kherson. They need to take ground, and they need to take it quickly before those western MBTs can join the fight. Because once they do, their greatest assets are no longer viable on the ground.
I don't know if any Ukrainian tank crews are trained on this new equipment yet or not, but if they are, I really hope those weapons can get there sooner than later. Ukrainians are being murdered and these weapons can help to limit that.
Firm_Introduction69 t1_j6j787p wrote
The US is clearly running out of old equipment to send to Ukraine, they're now sending BFVs and M1 Abrams. I would also take that as a sign that things aren't going well for Ukraine right now, running out of able body soldiers.
Pleeo t1_j6jbh1g wrote
Sounds like US could broker deals in which NATO gear is sent to countries that have soviet gear on condition they send their soviet gear to Ukraine.
littlecampbell t1_j6jesx7 wrote
You’re right it was probably higher
TrouserDemon t1_j6jfwwx wrote
Exactly that is happening.
muncherofhay t1_j6juvin wrote
Yeah I agree right now the Ukranians are on the back foot. It looks like thousands of Russians dying to hundreds of Ukranians, but the Russians are still advancing. They don't seem to mind the cost.
bombmk t1_j6k08qj wrote
The one thing that has me worried atm is that has been a while since we have had a significant Ukrainian positive movement on the fronts. As far as I can tell.
Now, that might VERY well be due to deliberate strategic decisions of just hanging on the ropes over winter and let the Russians punch themselves tired.
Still has me somewhat worried that the Russians with their more concentrated strategy of pushing flesh at the dam until it breaks might have found a way to prevent the Ukrainians from overloading the Ukrainian ability to cover the front AND maintain offensive capabilities.
At which point it becomes speculation about the sustainability of the Russian strategy.
But I sincerely hope that it is just me being overly worried. And that they new NATO hardware arrives sooner rather than later.
bombmk t1_j6k1xhx wrote
1: Initiative is not "overwhelming"
2: Not known if remaining defensive is a conscious strategic choice while they are waiting for spring and the new hardware it brings. That is of course highly speculative.
But it does seem like positive movements map wise has been going the Russian way lately. No argument there. The less obvious part is whether that has come at a sustainable cost.
bombmk t1_j6k4s0i wrote
Question of what makes something "THAT important" is a little complex though.
What from the outside can be seen as a completely Pyrrhic victory can still work on the inside for someone like Putin that will be under increasing pressure to show success. To just give one example.
It could also boost morale all over the front for Russians troops - the effectively makes the cost worthwhile. (I doubt that, but for the sake of example)
And the Russian army does not operate under the same societal sensitivity to losses that the US does. It is still nuts - but that does not mean it cannot work for an orchish horde.
bombmk t1_j6kaf1l wrote
> It makes no sense from a military perspective.
Given that the reason is political pussyfooting that can be very true while offering no explanatory power for the question at hand.
I could understand holding back while the things where still on a jittery scale at the start of the conflict (don't want your gear picked up by the other side the the day after it arrives).
But since the Ukrainians started pushing them back, I have very little respect or patience for the tempo of the material help they have been given.
They have been trying to boil the mythical nuclear frog without making it jump out of the pot. And as long is it is only Ukrainians dying, a slower boil is of course the safer choice...
bombmk t1_j6kawrp wrote
Political pussyfooting.
There is SOME logic to stepping it up slowly to avoid giving Putin a single big issue to use as grounds for a truly horrible decision. Slow boiling the nuclear/biological weapons issue basically.
They have in my opinion just been WAY too careful. Which is politically safe as long as it is not their citizens dying.
bombmk t1_j6kbsy5 wrote
Dude. I hope you can see the pettiness of that comment if you read it again.
Can't do good for the sake of doing good?
bombmk t1_j6kcg61 wrote
On the job material testing without the risk to trained manpower. That alone will cover the actual cost of the material being sent.
[deleted] t1_j6kdtgd wrote
[deleted]
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j6kl5zt wrote
I mean.... A weapon that threatened Moscow from Ukraine would quickly make the war massively unpopular in Moscow. All this dicking around us equivalent to weapon testing. What's the end goal here? Bring Moscow to the peace talks, restore Ukraine, bring them into the western fold. Dragging it all out just craters Ruasia and Ukraine further into the ground.
Does anyone think Russia is actually going to be able to win? Are they just trying to push Ukraine into letting go of Donbas and Crimea? It's just not worth it. Keeping Putin in power? Geeze, that's a lot of suffering for one guy.
[deleted] t1_j6kma0c wrote
[removed]
OneSky8953 t1_j6ku95p wrote
Is that because you have 70 IQ or because you have no basic concept of give and take?
As a South Korean, I am not sure whats the point of helping them if even the head of their country officially don't appreciate or even recognize us.
kmmontandon t1_j6l14s8 wrote
>no western sources
Poisoning the well in your own question. Do you think there’s some Western conspiracy regarding Russia’s population & demographics?
[deleted] t1_j6l1i8n wrote
[removed]
kmmontandon t1_j6l5zxq wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia?wprov=sfti1
You’re welcome to complain about this entirely well sourced & cited information.
[deleted] t1_j6l7suu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6lb4ym wrote
[removed]
medievalvelocipede t1_j6m9qkq wrote
>We gave significant amount of financial aids to Ukraine since day 1 but it seems Ukraine hasn't give any credits to us lol
Some say it may be intentional to avoid complicating SKs relations with Russia. Japan was also excluded.
ASD_Detector_Array t1_j6m9unp wrote
Yeah that's a good point. I like the slow boil analogy around the nuclear issue.
I still think that the wearing down of an adversary can't easily be discounted as a motive.
bombmk t1_j6mco0c wrote
Sure, that argument does not disprove that there are other motives.
But I have yet to see someone make a convincing argument supporting the idea that Russia losing slowly is more effective than them losing fast. A retreat would be a political nightmare for Putin.
Web_Automatic t1_j6gfyg5 wrote
We gave him so much shit how he blown through it all already