It's impossible to defeat someone who outnumbers you and doesn't care about casualties.
.
osint.is
To add to insult, Ukraine is a flat country too, there is a reason why Kursk was a big tank battle.Considering that they were universally predicted to be destined to fall in weeks if not days and that absolutely nobody ever believed they could survive an all-out Russian invasion and be anything else than a stepping stone for further Russian advance, the fact that they are still standing three years in after getting military aid worth less than 1% of US' GDP is nothing less than impressive.
There's only one country that is completely humiliating itself in this war through it's extreme ineptitude and massively lower capabilities than it had advertised for years, and that is Russia. Even if they won tomorrow, nothing will ever change the fact that they were stalemated for over three years by fucking Ukraine of all countries
Modern warfare is technological, which is tied to how good a race is when it comes to developing technology and maintaining logistics.
Very true, maybe you should tell that to the braindead pro Ukrainian mainstream media consumers, who still think victory is possible. Idiots like Jake Broe for example.
One needs to consider that with modern weaponry, the rudimentary "mongol" style warfare will cause exceptionally more causality.
Yes but it's an oversimplification I guess. Modern weaponry does make high casualty tactics costlier, but history shows such strategies remain viable when a regime can absorb the losses. Iran in the 1980s or Russia recently illustrate this clearly. 3 years later and they're still shouting ZOV, Z, Davai jfl. Advanced arms raise the price of attrition warfare, but don’t eliminate it. If one side prioritizes victory over human life and has the political will to sustain it, quantity can still overwhelm quality.
The standard for "expertise" is very low these days. News journalists literally call Glocks as Aks. Save for a few, you'd get more accurate analysis from incels (those interested in a given topic ofc)
Yes, but Russia has always used the number of soldiers rather than the quality. This was also the case during the Tsarist era. It's simply that human life in Russia has never been valued, and as a result, despite being technologically backward compared to Western Europe, Russia has always relied on its numerical superiority and the fact that its enemies value their soldiers more, making their losses psychologically more significant. In fact, the only enemy that Russia has successfully defeated throughout most of its history is the Ottoman Empire, as they were even more technologically backward than Russia itself.
Losses don't matter when it comes to a tyrannical state where human life is worth nothing. The entire United States was psychologically shattered by the loss of 60,000 soldiers in Vietnam over a 10-year period, leading the country to rely on technological means of killing rather than infantry. In contrast, Russia has lost approximately one million soldiers over a 3.5-year period, and no one seems to care.
Secondly, the Russian armed forces have always suffered from low morale, as most peasants were forced to fight against their will. Approximately one in four Russian soldiers surrendered during World War I. During the First World War, 66 generals of the Tsarist army were captured by the enemy (according to other sources, 73 generals were captured). In contrast, only two German generals were captured by the Russians.
For Ukrainians, as for Finns, the mere survival of their state will be considered a victory in this war. Even if the Finns lost 15% of their territory in the Winter War, and the Ukrainians lose 25% of their territory. This is still a victory.
Modern Russia isn't Russia back then. There's no vast Soviet population and resources. There's so much lose you can take before the society stops functioning and population gets angry.
Yes, she can spend her population freely, because the basis of Russia's economy is raw materials, namely oil, gas, diamonds, and coal, and it doesn't require a large population to extract them. Margaret Thatcher once said that Russia only needs 25 million people to extract oil, gas, coal, timber, diamonds, and so on, and transport them for sale to the West.
It seems that neither side has a goal to win. Like RF for example, which had all the opportunities to kill most of Ukraine leadership, destroy all bridges across Dnipro river to collapse AFU logistics, attack in the least protected areas between Chernigov and Sumy regions, instead, they deliberately grind the most protected Donbass agglomeration where AFU defense lines have been built since 2014 and has the most experienced and powerful part of it's military there. Everything that the leadership of Russia does seems like deliberate sabotage, aimed at demilitarizing themselves.
Yeah they lost (significant damage to themselves, civic and military) the war when they failed to seize the early advantage.
small number of troops and equipment dispersed in all directions (again, deliberate sabotage) then at the very beginning (late febuary-march) they started to conduct negotiations in Belarus which resulted in withdrawal of all the forces from the north of Ukraine.
in early 2014 Ukraine military was a joke, kind of like modern day Belarus but worse, instead of finishing them off in that perfect moment they let them rearm, modernize their military. also gave them combat experience they needed so much.
www.rbc.ru
RF has comparable air force to Israel when it comes to quantity, but Israel is sovereign state doing whatever they want, they have demonstrated complete dominance in the skies over Iran, dropping anything they want at them from above and refueling over their territory.
jews don't really want to live there
Considering that they were universally predicted to be destined to fall in weeks if not days and that absolutely nobody ever believed they could survive an all-out Russian invasion and be anything else than a stepping stone for further Russian advance, the fact that they are still standing three years in after getting military aid worth less than 1% of US' GDP is nothing less than impressive.
There's only one country that is completely humiliating itself in this war through it's extreme ineptitude and massively lower capabilities than it had advertised for years, and that is Russia. Even if they won tomorrow, nothing will ever change the fact that they were stalemated for over three years by fucking Ukraine of all countries
they do but without us
Aptly put
