4 ms·

> Russia has already been humiliated. According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks,

> Russia has already been humiliated. According to whom and compared to what? Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel and gear and are weeks, maybe days, from consolidating and absorbing the Donboss. Keep in mind that Ukraine is the second largest military in Europe (after Russia) with their own military industrial complex, huge cache of Soviet weapons and the training and intelligence assets of NATO. Can you name a single successful significant counter offensive (other than the Moskva) by Ukraine?

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Under deploy your army, spread them too thin and attack at all fronts, send generals to die at the front line, retreat and focus everything on taking over a pile of rubble. It is hilarious, if only it wasn’t so sad.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Russia has incompaciated the second largest military (a true near-peer) in just a handful of months. Like it or not, their tactics have worked. Read up on military feints and Maskarovka, nobody is better than this than the Russians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception
  - trasz 4y ago
    Russia has incapacitated the second largest military indeed: their own. Trying to invade a country which a couple of years ago didn't have any real army to speak of, and failing terribly. They lost Kyiv, they lost Kharkiv, hopefully after Russian economy crashes they will also loose their territorial integrity.
inglor_cz 4y ago
"Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel" That is a shallow measure. Most modern armies have "tooth to tail" [0] ratio less than 1:5. Combat-ready units constitute a minority of the entire military personnel everywhere, and Russia has deployed most of those in Ukraine. It cannot afford to deploy all of them, as it has long borders and shores that need patrolling. Russia no doubt has a huge cache of Soviet-era weapons, but it has already burnt through much of that cache, much like Ukraine did. Given that they are transferring T-62 to the theater, deploying ancient Kh-22 missiles and that the dud rate for both missiles and artillery shells seems to be between 10-30 per cent, it seems that they are already down to using older, less reliable stock. That does not mean that they ran out of modern stuff completely, but rather that the newer stock is depleted enough that they need to be careful about that. For me, the humiliation consists of the current stalemate. I don't require any massive counteroffensives from the Ukrainians to see the Russian advance as a failure. They didn't manage to take freaking Kharkiv that lies just 40 km from the border and they fought three months over Mariupol, besieged from all sides. This is just incompatible with the image of an unstoppable bear that Russia cultivated before the war. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio
- cpursley 4y ago
  Can you provide any evidence that they actually went after Kharkiv in earnest other than blowing up some military targets? They'll probably eventually take that city as it is historically and majority Russian. As for the (retrofitted) T-62s, those are mostly given to the Donboss militias and a perfect tank to use in the already conquered rear. They are still armor and they still function. US also runs some old gear if you didn't know. As for the dud rates, I'd expect that for older missiles. Their new stuff (which is more advanced than anything the US has) is less than 10%. And it's clear they're not running out any time soon despite western media claims two months ago that their weapons stocks were days from depletion. On the other hand, the dud rate for western supplied Javalins and NLAWs is around 80% as reported by Ukrainian military personnel. And it's actually now illegal for Ukrainian troops to publicly criticize the effectiveness of western supplied weapons. Let's stop projecting and be honest about what's actually going on.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Russia's advanced new stuff is mostly vaporware. Like the Armata tank, which was accepted into service a couple of years ago, but can't be manufactured. Or MiG-35, which isn't particularly modern, but can't be manufactured either.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Under deploy your army, spread them too thin and attack at all fronts, send generals to die at the front line, retreat and focus everything on taking over a pile of rubble. It is hilarious, if only it wasn’t so sad.

cpursley 4y ago
Russia has incompaciated the second largest military (a true near-peer) in just a handful of months. Like it or not, their tactics have worked. Read up on military feints and Maskarovka, nobody is better than this than the Russians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception
- trasz 4y ago
  Russia has incapacitated the second largest military indeed: their own. Trying to invade a country which a couple of years ago didn't have any real army to speak of, and failing terribly. They lost Kyiv, they lost Kharkiv, hopefully after Russian economy crashes they will also loose their territorial integrity.

inglor_cz 4y ago

"Russia has employed maybe 20% of their military personnel" That is a shallow measure. Most modern armies have "tooth to tail" [0] ratio less than 1:5. Combat-ready units constitute a minority of the entire military personnel everywhere, and Russia has deployed most of those in Ukraine. It cannot afford to deploy all of them, as it has long borders and shores that need patrolling. Russia no doubt has a huge cache of Soviet-era weapons, but it has already burnt through much of that cache, much like Ukraine did. Given that they are transferring T-62 to the theater, deploying ancient Kh-22 missiles and that the dud rate for both missiles and artillery shells seems to be between 10-30 per cent, it seems that they are already down to using older, less reliable stock. That does not mean that they ran out of modern stuff completely, but rather that the newer stock is depleted enough that they need to be careful about that. For me, the humiliation consists of the current stalemate. I don't require any massive counteroffensives from the Ukrainians to see the Russian advance as a failure. They didn't manage to take freaking Kharkiv that lies just 40 km from the border and they fought three months over Mariupol, besieged from all sides. This is just incompatible with the image of an unstoppable bear that Russia cultivated before the war. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio

cpursley 4y ago
Can you provide any evidence that they actually went after Kharkiv in earnest other than blowing up some military targets? They'll probably eventually take that city as it is historically and majority Russian. As for the (retrofitted) T-62s, those are mostly given to the Donboss militias and a perfect tank to use in the already conquered rear. They are still armor and they still function. US also runs some old gear if you didn't know. As for the dud rates, I'd expect that for older missiles. Their new stuff (which is more advanced than anything the US has) is less than 10%. And it's clear they're not running out any time soon despite western media claims two months ago that their weapons stocks were days from depletion. On the other hand, the dud rate for western supplied Javalins and NLAWs is around 80% as reported by Ukrainian military personnel. And it's actually now illegal for Ukrainian troops to publicly criticize the effectiveness of western supplied weapons. Let's stop projecting and be honest about what's actually going on.
- trasz 4y ago
  Russia's advanced new stuff is mostly vaporware. Like the Armata tank, which was accepted into service a couple of years ago, but can't be manufactured. Or MiG-35, which isn't particularly modern, but can't be manufactured either.