2 ms·

Oh, Russia are and have been for decades now, VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people and mid-late Soviet-artillery at A Situation to 'win' it. They tend to b

Oh, Russia are and have been for decades now, VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people and mid-late Soviet-artillery at A Situation to 'win' it. They tend to be somewhat Pyrrhic victories, but what does that matter when you utterly control the domestic narrative? The basic strategy of total annihilaton is the same one beloved of Stalin, who called artillery "the God of war". He wasn't wrong, but I'm not sure the people underneath it much appreciate its effectivity. I don't think anyone beyond the ever-optimistic has at any point disputed that Russia has huge stocks of weaponry to draw from - it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Anyway, point here being that Russia doesn't have hypersonic weaponry in the vein tested by America here. They do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBMs and even a nuclear-powered [highly-polluting] cruise missile, or the submarine-based nuke which 'could wipe out the British Isles' which is Putin's wet dream. Subtle. Think of the outcry if anyone in the west even considered such ridiculousness in this day and age... . ed - anti-speed edits

cpursley 4y ago
> VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. > it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Russia is ahead of the US with electronic warfare, ballistics and air defense. And that's a fact well recognized by western experts. > do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBM They've already successfully tested Satan's and will be deploying it soon. Or it's all a fake production to scare the west. What do I know.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. What do we define as winning here?, Ukraines tactic is to fall back to defensive positions when they are about to lose something so not to lose men. The gains Russia has made are very small and the amount of equipment and men it has taken to make them is huge. Most of those games where made before long range heavy western weapons started being delivered too, I suspect their gains will slow down even further because of this.

cpursley 4y ago

> VERY GOOD at throwing heckloads of people US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. > it just doesn't have a lot of particularly technological or, dare I say it, 'graceful' weaponry to deploy. Russia is ahead of the US with electronic warfare, ballistics and air defense. And that's a fact well recognized by western experts. > do appear to want to invest in Satan-class mega ICBM They've already successfully tested Satan's and will be deploying it soon. Or it's all a fake production to scare the west. What do I know.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> US military doctrine states that an invading force needs a 3:1 attacker:defender ratio. Russia went in with the inverse of that and is still winning. What do we define as winning here?, Ukraines tactic is to fall back to defensive positions when they are about to lose something so not to lose men. The gains Russia has made are very small and the amount of equipment and men it has taken to make them is huge. Most of those games where made before long range heavy western weapons started being delivered too, I suspect their gains will slow down even further because of this.