3 ms·

Russian tactics have been largely ineffective and characterized by horrendous losses despite immense advantages in manpower and material

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Russian tactics have worked so far in Ukraine, as gruesome as that is.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  That very much depends on what you mean by "worked". And it's not like Western militaries are lacking the physical means to engage in heavier and more damaging attacks; they just have viable alternatives that they prefer.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    1) Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men) 2) Putin has conquered more money/value/resources than he lost due to the conflict (by a factor of 10, maybe 100) 3) Even Ukraine's European allies seem to agree that Putin will get a ceasefire and sanctions relief where he gets to keep what he conquered It's true that Russia did not achieve it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine, and let's just not talk about the outright embarrassing "in 3 days" part), but they got quite a bit. Perhaps even more important, they got more than enough to make the conflict, at least potentially, a net positive for Putin.
    - snozolli 2y ago
      Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men) What a weird metric. More civilians subjugated than soldiers lost? it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine Russia wants to destroy the Ukrainian cultural identity. It's cultural genocide, and it's been a goal of theirs for hundreds of years. This is why they steal Ukrainian children and ship them off to be adopted in Russia.
      - spwa4 2y ago
        I agree it's weird. But it's the metric, I think, that most determines if Putin can just start another war in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. That's my reason for why it's important. It determines the next phase of the war.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  They’ve worked, at great cost, against Ukraine. They wouldn’t work against a more powerful foe with air superiority.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

Russian tactics have worked so far in Ukraine, as gruesome as that is.

zozbot234 2y ago
That very much depends on what you mean by "worked". And it's not like Western militaries are lacking the physical means to engage in heavier and more damaging attacks; they just have viable alternatives that they prefer.
- spwa4 2y ago
  1) Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men) 2) Putin has conquered more money/value/resources than he lost due to the conflict (by a factor of 10, maybe 100) 3) Even Ukraine's European allies seem to agree that Putin will get a ceasefire and sanctions relief where he gets to keep what he conquered It's true that Russia did not achieve it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine, and let's just not talk about the outright embarrassing "in 3 days" part), but they got quite a bit. Perhaps even more important, they got more than enough to make the conflict, at least potentially, a net positive for Putin.
  - snozolli 2y ago
    Putin has conquered more population than he lost (even just counting fighting age men) What a weird metric. More civilians subjugated than soldiers lost? it's war goals (destruction or total control of Ukraine Russia wants to destroy the Ukrainian cultural identity. It's cultural genocide, and it's been a goal of theirs for hundreds of years. This is why they steal Ukrainian children and ship them off to be adopted in Russia.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      I agree it's weird. But it's the metric, I think, that most determines if Putin can just start another war in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. That's my reason for why it's important. It determines the next phase of the war.
jncfhnb 2y ago
They’ve worked, at great cost, against Ukraine. They wouldn’t work against a more powerful foe with air superiority.