4 ms·

> is no longer the case. Now it's drones Now, yes. But we wasted two years of war before going to that point and during this entire time Russia has outgunned U

> is no longer the case. Now it's drones Now, yes. But we wasted two years of war before going to that point and during this entire time Russia has outgunned Ukraine by almost an order of magnitude, mostly because shells where a scarce resource for the AFU, which is a shame. And artillery still is far from irrelevant even now.

tim333 1y ago
The whole war seems a bit unnecessary. If Biden had said if you invade Ukraine we'll set the USAF on the invading troops the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  Or the French, the Germans, the Poles and the Brits could have prepositioned troops (a brigade each, maximum) in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Putin wouldn't have moved either. As I said above, I don't blame the US for not doing more as their action maximized their own interests, but I blame out European leaders for being spineless cowards.
  - pydry 1y ago
    The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. There is no question of that. European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. Trump has comprehensively and publicly ruled that out though. He refuses to be drawn in. And what would you do in that situation? with a bunch of dead troops, an infuriated Russia and no US to come to the rescue?
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      > The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. 4 years and a million casualties too late though. > If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly, nor can they secure air dominance over a country with only old Soviet airframes, they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. > European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. They'd been no need to save anything, Putin isn't dumb enough to start a fight with European countries. Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years, hoping to win against the whole Europeans would be stupidly delusional.
      - pydry 1y ago
        >What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced. >nor can they secure air dominance Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days and glide bombs are wrecking all front line fortifications. This certainly wasnt the case in 2023 or 2024 when the russian air force did nothing, but it is now. >they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. I think you might be wildly overestimating how many troops Europe has to spare, also. >Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years He invaded the largest country in Europe, supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation?
        littlestymaar 1y ago
        > Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced I for sure have not been watching it on RT. Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm, not “our three days special operation has been bogged down in Donbass for three years”. > Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days If only… The only way Russia keeps a steady amount of damage from Shahed is by multiplying their deployment because the AFU similarly increase their interceptions. > shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke, and it turned out these red lines where all bluff. > He invaded the largest country in Europe The third biggest, after Russia (and France) with only a fifth the population of Russia, and a country that didn't have an actual army before 2014. > supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Just barely: western countries first refused to send heavy weapons, then refused to send tanks, then refused to send fighter jets, then they piled up restrictions after restrictions on the use of force and some are still refusing to send long range weapons (hello Germany). > Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation? He definitely failed his 3 days military operation and put his country in a years long war that annihilated all of its army modernization program that was running for the past decade. Now how much can he limit the consequences of his failure is an open question. And that doesn't change the fact that he still hasn't been able to win against the small and weak Ukraine after three years, which is not a good situation to be in if you want to fight European powers together…

tim333 1y ago

The whole war seems a bit unnecessary. If Biden had said if you invade Ukraine we'll set the USAF on the invading troops the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened.

littlestymaar 1y ago
Or the French, the Germans, the Poles and the Brits could have prepositioned troops (a brigade each, maximum) in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Putin wouldn't have moved either. As I said above, I don't blame the US for not doing more as their action maximized their own interests, but I blame out European leaders for being spineless cowards.
- pydry 1y ago
  The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. There is no question of that. European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. Trump has comprehensively and publicly ruled that out though. He refuses to be drawn in. And what would you do in that situation? with a bunch of dead troops, an infuriated Russia and no US to come to the rescue?
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    > The French, Germans and Poles keep talking about doing just that - with "reassurance" forces or whatever the name for it is these days. 4 years and a million casualties too late though. > If they deploy those forces they will be wiped out. What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly, nor can they secure air dominance over a country with only old Soviet airframes, they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. > European leaders' main hope was that they could sacrifice some troops to provoke the yanks over to save the day. They'd been no need to save anything, Putin isn't dumb enough to start a fight with European countries. Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years, hoping to win against the whole Europeans would be stupidly delusional.
    - pydry 1y ago
      >What? We've all seen the offensive capabilities of the Russian over the past three years and it's been very clear that they can't run combined arms properly Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced. >nor can they secure air dominance Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days and glide bombs are wrecking all front line fortifications. This certainly wasnt the case in 2023 or 2024 when the russian air force did nothing, but it is now. >they wouldn't be able to wipe out anything in a short period and attacking allied forces means declaring war to those nations, which Russians cannot afford to do. shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. I think you might be wildly overestimating how many troops Europe has to spare, also. >Putin couldn't beat Ukraine in more than three years He invaded the largest country in Europe, supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation?
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        > Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced I for sure have not been watching it on RT. Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm, not “our three days special operation has been bogged down in Donbass for three years”. > Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days If only… The only way Russia keeps a steady amount of damage from Shahed is by multiplying their deployment because the AFU similarly increase their interceptions. > shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff. Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke, and it turned out these red lines where all bluff. > He invaded the largest country in Europe The third biggest, after Russia (and France) with only a fifth the population of Russia, and a country that didn't have an actual army before 2014. > supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world. Just barely: western countries first refused to send heavy weapons, then refused to send tanks, then refused to send fighter jets, then they piled up restrictions after restrictions on the use of force and some are still refusing to send long range weapons (hello Germany). > Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation? He definitely failed his 3 days military operation and put his country in a years long war that annihilated all of its army modernization program that was running for the past decade. Now how much can he limit the consequences of his failure is an open question. And that doesn't change the fact that he still hasn't been able to win against the small and weak Ukraine after three years, which is not a good situation to be in if you want to fight European powers together…