5 ms·
I believe the 3:1 metric is to be taken literally with equally skilled/equipped forces (source: was in the military). The Ukrainian military is outperforming th
by Arch485 4y ago
I believe the 3:1 metric is to be taken literally with equally skilled/equipped forces (source: was in the military). The Ukrainian military is outperforming the Russian military and the Ukrainians have a ton of equipment the Russians weren't anticipating, so the 3:1 metric isn't working out so well.
- oneoff786 4y agoI don’t believe Russia had. 3:1 advantage though. I’m not even convinced they had more troops than Ukraine. The concentration of the troops was enough for early local differences. But they never had these kinds of numbers in, say, Kyiv.
- chrchang523 4y agoYeah, I remember hearing about "190000 Russian troops" at the outbreak of this operation, and thinking that that was an awfully small number given the size of Ukraine.
- oneoff786 4y agoUkraine was pretty pathetic back when Russia took Crimea. It probably would have been an easy sweep of kyiv and others at the time with those forces. Russia didn’t pay attention and Ukraine spent the last decade getting extremely prepared for exactly this.
- marcosdumay 4y agoUkraine was in civil war when Russia took Crimea.
- dimitar 4y agoThis is not true. The president had abandoned his post and ran away and much of the military and security aparatus was infiltrated by Russia, which left Ukrainian forces in Crimea surrounded in their bases, without orders and much of the gear disabled. The Donbass war started in the following months, with many of the "separatists" and "volunteers" coming from Russia, including early leaders like Girkin-Strelkov (a GRU officer).
- lupire 4y agoRussia attacked Crimea on 2014. In 2022, Russia attacked Kyiv and Kharkiv and other areas well outside of active separatist zones.
- oneoff786 4y agoYes. I’m saying had Russia attacked kyiv in 2014 I think it would have won. Idk if it would have been as practical to just swoop in via Belarus at the time.