3 ms·

Yes this exactly. I think just looking at a map of ukraine is enough to see that while we are showered by ukrainian success stories to the point where you'd thi

Yes this exactly. I think just looking at a map of ukraine is enough to see that while we are showered by ukrainian success stories to the point where you'd think russia is completely stalled in their invasion... the reality is quite different. Here's a good updated live map with a frontline overlay: https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194 https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/09... Keep in mind the war started 3 weeks ago. The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's just all reminiscent of the Armenia-Azerbaïdjan war in 2020 in terms of "false social media driven hopes". If we want to help the ukrainians, downplaying the russian threat is like the total opposite of what we need.

wolverine876 5y ago
Russia itself and military experts around the world expected a Russian victory within a few days. Ukraine of course isn't doing well in absolute terms - they'd be much better off if like the rest of the world they weren't being attacked! But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds. Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless. > The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Is that really true?
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military. I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot. Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. That's accurate enough for what I meant. > The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas That's only true because Russia is shooting missiles (including from planes) and artillery, and keeping their planes away from Ukrainian anti-air defenses. Russia has been attacking civilian areas indiscriminately, by all reports, and I remember nothing like that from the US invasion of Iraq (there was hardly time - the US swept in relatively easily). Also, the US used precision guided weapons, which do far less 'unintended' damage. > Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. In reaction to the Georgia invasion, Russia invested in a major reform of their military. It hasn't worked well. Corruption, in particular, is hard to overcome, and non-democracies have a much more difficult time with it.

wolverine876 5y ago

Russia itself and military experts around the world expected a Russian victory within a few days. Ukraine of course isn't doing well in absolute terms - they'd be much better off if like the rest of the world they weren't being attacked! But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds. Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless. > The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. Is that really true?

mardifoufs 5y ago
The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military. I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot. Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two. That's accurate enough for what I meant. > The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas That's only true because Russia is shooting missiles (including from planes) and artillery, and keeping their planes away from Ukrainian anti-air defenses. Russia has been attacking civilian areas indiscriminately, by all reports, and I remember nothing like that from the US invasion of Iraq (there was hardly time - the US swept in relatively easily). Also, the US used precision guided weapons, which do far less 'unintended' damage. > Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force. In reaction to the Georgia invasion, Russia invested in a major reform of their military. It hasn't worked well. Corruption, in particular, is hard to overcome, and non-democracies have a much more difficult time with it.