5 ms·

I'm not expert but I, more or less, follow the war (from my comfortable sofa) and I would like to point some observations. -We see a lot of Russian bad decisio

I'm not expert but I, more or less, follow the war (from my comfortable sofa) and I would like to point some observations. -We see a lot of Russian bad decisions and result of that decisions but never Ukrainian. That should you make you stop and think. -If you look only to the maps, and not the news, it's not obvious that the war is going so well for Ukraine, despise they have logistic and intelligence support from NATO. I could be wrong, but that makes me think that we are the target of a marketing operation.

bundze 4y ago
Of course, propaganda is a natural and necessary part of war and what we are reading is mostly pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Stories that are meant to raise morale. You should always take war news with a pinch of salt.
- coldcode 4y ago
  Sure there is always some on both sides; but the Russians were considered a superpower and Ukraine's military was considered much weaker on paper: the Russians are the ones moving backwards and losing all the time. Winners go forwards. Propaganda is mostly useful to the loser trying to convince their population that all is well. Goebbels kept saying Germany was winning even as the Russians and Western allies were already in Germany.
indymike 4y ago
> I could be wrong, but that makes me think that we are the target of a marketing operation. a) I think we're realizing that the marketing operation was 70 years of "Russia is scary strong". Reality is Russia is really bad at fighting armies and great at brutalizing civilians. b) The preponderance of evidence is that Russia has made a long string of really, really bad decisions at all levels. It is so bad that they should consider playing Yakety Sax when they pass in review. c) The fact is Russia should have taken all of Ukraine by now given the asset and manpower advantage they have. The fact they haven't achieved air dominance, have lost major capital ships to a country that effectively has no navy and are being beat by forces largely using less of the same equipment plus is just mystifying. It wasn't that many years ago that the Russian and Ukrainian army were the same Soviet army.
- sakopov 4y ago
  > I think we're realizing that the marketing operation was 70 years of "Russia is scary strong". Reality is Russia is really bad at fighting armies and great at brutalizing civilians. Whether it was a marketing campaign or not the USSR military was scary strong until it began its collapse along with the union in the 80s.
  - orbital-decay 4y ago
    It's... unclear. The Cold War was all about power projection and no real fight at scale (thankfully). Projection here implies an image to project as well as actual military power, the proportion between them unproven by definition. Smoke without fire. The same is surely true for any military of any country, but if you actually study the history of the Cold War in depth and detail, there are reasons to believe that USSR military has been hyped well beyond the real capabilities, even at its peak in 60's. Hyped not just by the Union, but by other countries as well, due to various reasons (internal funding, just to name and example; Swedish military in particular was very persistent in this and kept this strawman to fund its MIC well into 2010s).
- RobertoG 4y ago
  a) Well, now that we have realized the truth, I'm sure everybody is going to be on board with reducing the NATO military budgets and dedicating the resources to more productive endeavors. b) No doubt about that, starting by invading. c) I'm not sure about the manpower advantage. What are the numbers? And Ukraine is fighting in its own territory with unlimited intelligence and supply support from the richest countries in the world. We shouldn't forget about that.
  - Moru 4y ago
    Ukrain troops have also recieved plenty of training from a lot of western countries since Russia took Krim 7-8 years ago. And not only NATO countries, Sweden has had instructors there until the start of the latest war.
  - signatoremo 4y ago
earthbee 4y ago
I'm sure there is lots of propaganda at play, but it doesn't change the basic numbers of Russia having over three times Ukraine's population and nearly ten times their GDP, also a much larger military with a much larger military budget. With all those advantages you shouldn't need excellence to secure victory just basic level competence, yet look what's happening.
- RobertoG 4y ago
  But Russia has not mobilized. That's why they keep calling this clusterf*ck a 'special operation'. In fact, I don't know the exact numbers, but my impression is that they have less troops than the defenders in Ukraine. And your comparative is kind of unfair. I mean, the war is kind of stuck, with all the support from NATO. Imagine how it would go without external support. It really bothers me being "that guy", because I have not special love for Putin and its band of kleptocrats, but come on, let's have a little of critical thinking. Or do you think that the USA support of Ukraine is for "defending freedom"?
  - earthbee 4y ago
    We know exactly how the war would go without the external support because that's how the war started. Russia picked the time, date, place and had the initiative, Ukraine wasn't convinced that Russia was going to invade despite US warnings, and yet despite all that the Russian advance bogged down in three days. After one month multiple intelligence sources and an accidental leak from Russia said Russia had experienced around 10,000 fatalities. This was during the period before significant amounts of arms had arrived from other countries. This was done by Ukraine largely using what it had at the outbreak of war. That is a huge number of dead in such a short time. This is not Russia showing competence. Like you said, Russia hasn't mobilised, but they wouldn't start a war they thought they wouldn't win so the fact they haven't mobilised and invaded anyway shows poor intelligence and lack of judgement. The fact Russia didn't mobilise isn't evidence of Russia secretly been good actually, it's more evidence of incompetence. And clearly Russia hasn't sent its entire military but since their military is much larger than Ukraine's they can pick the units and equipment most suitable for the mission, where Ukraine just has to use everything, regular military, reservists, paramilitaries, and in many cases volunteers with literally hours of training. So even if the numbers are similar the advantage would still be with Russia. No matter how you try to paint it Russia had nearly every advantage yet still managed to largely stall in just three days and experience huge losses doing it. It is blindingly clear the Russian military is doing a very incompetent job and it takes some very motivated reasoning to begin to argue otherwise. It's not just enough to call for critical thinking, you actually have to practice it.

bundze 4y ago

Of course, propaganda is a natural and necessary part of war and what we are reading is mostly pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Stories that are meant to raise morale. You should always take war news with a pinch of salt.

coldcode 4y ago
Sure there is always some on both sides; but the Russians were considered a superpower and Ukraine's military was considered much weaker on paper: the Russians are the ones moving backwards and losing all the time. Winners go forwards. Propaganda is mostly useful to the loser trying to convince their population that all is well. Goebbels kept saying Germany was winning even as the Russians and Western allies were already in Germany.

indymike 4y ago

> I could be wrong, but that makes me think that we are the target of a marketing operation. a) I think we're realizing that the marketing operation was 70 years of "Russia is scary strong". Reality is Russia is really bad at fighting armies and great at brutalizing civilians. b) The preponderance of evidence is that Russia has made a long string of really, really bad decisions at all levels. It is so bad that they should consider playing Yakety Sax when they pass in review. c) The fact is Russia should have taken all of Ukraine by now given the asset and manpower advantage they have. The fact they haven't achieved air dominance, have lost major capital ships to a country that effectively has no navy and are being beat by forces largely using less of the same equipment plus is just mystifying. It wasn't that many years ago that the Russian and Ukrainian army were the same Soviet army.

sakopov 4y ago
> I think we're realizing that the marketing operation was 70 years of "Russia is scary strong". Reality is Russia is really bad at fighting armies and great at brutalizing civilians. Whether it was a marketing campaign or not the USSR military was scary strong until it began its collapse along with the union in the 80s.
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  It's... unclear. The Cold War was all about power projection and no real fight at scale (thankfully). Projection here implies an image to project as well as actual military power, the proportion between them unproven by definition. Smoke without fire. The same is surely true for any military of any country, but if you actually study the history of the Cold War in depth and detail, there are reasons to believe that USSR military has been hyped well beyond the real capabilities, even at its peak in 60's. Hyped not just by the Union, but by other countries as well, due to various reasons (internal funding, just to name and example; Swedish military in particular was very persistent in this and kept this strawman to fund its MIC well into 2010s).
RobertoG 4y ago
a) Well, now that we have realized the truth, I'm sure everybody is going to be on board with reducing the NATO military budgets and dedicating the resources to more productive endeavors. b) No doubt about that, starting by invading. c) I'm not sure about the manpower advantage. What are the numbers? And Ukraine is fighting in its own territory with unlimited intelligence and supply support from the richest countries in the world. We shouldn't forget about that.
- Moru 4y ago
  Ukrain troops have also recieved plenty of training from a lot of western countries since Russia took Krim 7-8 years ago. And not only NATO countries, Sweden has had instructors there until the start of the latest war.
- signatoremo 4y ago

earthbee 4y ago

I'm sure there is lots of propaganda at play, but it doesn't change the basic numbers of Russia having over three times Ukraine's population and nearly ten times their GDP, also a much larger military with a much larger military budget. With all those advantages you shouldn't need excellence to secure victory just basic level competence, yet look what's happening.

RobertoG 4y ago
But Russia has not mobilized. That's why they keep calling this clusterf*ck a 'special operation'. In fact, I don't know the exact numbers, but my impression is that they have less troops than the defenders in Ukraine. And your comparative is kind of unfair. I mean, the war is kind of stuck, with all the support from NATO. Imagine how it would go without external support. It really bothers me being "that guy", because I have not special love for Putin and its band of kleptocrats, but come on, let's have a little of critical thinking. Or do you think that the USA support of Ukraine is for "defending freedom"?
- earthbee 4y ago
  We know exactly how the war would go without the external support because that's how the war started. Russia picked the time, date, place and had the initiative, Ukraine wasn't convinced that Russia was going to invade despite US warnings, and yet despite all that the Russian advance bogged down in three days. After one month multiple intelligence sources and an accidental leak from Russia said Russia had experienced around 10,000 fatalities. This was during the period before significant amounts of arms had arrived from other countries. This was done by Ukraine largely using what it had at the outbreak of war. That is a huge number of dead in such a short time. This is not Russia showing competence. Like you said, Russia hasn't mobilised, but they wouldn't start a war they thought they wouldn't win so the fact they haven't mobilised and invaded anyway shows poor intelligence and lack of judgement. The fact Russia didn't mobilise isn't evidence of Russia secretly been good actually, it's more evidence of incompetence. And clearly Russia hasn't sent its entire military but since their military is much larger than Ukraine's they can pick the units and equipment most suitable for the mission, where Ukraine just has to use everything, regular military, reservists, paramilitaries, and in many cases volunteers with literally hours of training. So even if the numbers are similar the advantage would still be with Russia. No matter how you try to paint it Russia had nearly every advantage yet still managed to largely stall in just three days and experience huge losses doing it. It is blindingly clear the Russian military is doing a very incompetent job and it takes some very motivated reasoning to begin to argue otherwise. It's not just enough to call for critical thinking, you actually have to practice it.