3 ms·

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 e

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

> 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.