Posted on 06/03/2025 6:10:16 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
Fighting overseas wars is easier and safer for sure, but the point stands that the “devastating losses” of the Russian Air Forces are not even 5% of that the US lost in Vietnam, and that if you believe the ridiculous claims of the Ukrainian propaganda, Black Sea fleet is still a major factor in this war despite being geographically contained under 24/4 NATO surveillance within the range of NATO proxy’s long range fires, and what “devastating losses” of “elite forces” are you talking about is another mystery. I heard fantastic claims that several airborne divisions were killed in the “Battle of Kiev.” In reality, the original invasion force in Gostomel haven’t even suffered a 10% casualty rate. And that is not in Gostomel but by April 2022. And by casualty I don’t mean killed, but include scratches on the elbows.
Regarding unloading old stuff it contradicts the original talking points and isn’t in line with reality. The air defenses are mostly brand new because the old stocks ran out outright, Javelins were of late series that most of the US troops didn’t see themselves, and how do you think Ukrainian Bradley or Stryker significantly different from the last models? And the only outcome of the weapons shopping spree was that the price of a 155 mm shell has jumped to $8k.
The defense industry is not geared for value have haven’t been since the end of Cold War. NATO literally gave them everything it practically could bring and support in the theater.
Regarding “Russian struggles” I don’t think that your background allows you to evaluate it this way.
I believe that Ukraine has so significantly damaged the Russian military that Russia is no longer a real threat to NATO.
Don’t tell it to the Chinese. They’ll think that Taliban and Houthis destroyed the US military for good.
As a side note, there are no militaries as skilled and hardened as Russian and Ukrainian in the world as we speak.
It isn’t the numbers, it is the effect of the losses, your Air Force and Navy is suffering, we still had the Air force and Navy we needed to counter you in Europe and eventually bring you down while maintaining our global forces and facing China and North Korea, if our Navy and Air Force had been destroyed as you said, you would had moved in Europe.
As far as fighting wars across the world from you, I think invading the next door neighbor is a lot easier, at least it should be for the world’s best military and should have been for what was seen as the world’s 2nd best military.
“Furthermore, it only escalates the possibility of igniting WWIII, which will be vastly different than WWI & WWII with the number of nations that are capable of having it go nuclear.”
************
The obvious danger here is that once a nuke is used nobody really knows what it will lead to in terms of retaliatory responses and/or escalation. Things could quickly get out of control, either intentionally or unintentionally, and defy containment which (to your point) is why we don’t want to get close to the edge in the first place.
I doubt that anyone thinks that it will. But it’s a hard slap in the face, I would compare its psychological impact to that of the Doolittle Raid.
Your point is without merit from a basic logical standpoint. Russian Air Force is the third in the world by size, a mere 5% of the losses (in reality much less) it suffered compared to that of the US doesn’t incapacitate it in any reasonable way not even reduces it due to replenishment by newly produced air frames. It certainly suffered 20 times less than the US force in Vietnam. Black Sea fleet is merely a flotilla compared to other Russian fleets and is still performing combat operations.
What the US had to “counter” someone in battles of your imagination “in Europe” that never took place in reality is irrelevant for discussion.
The fact that you think something doesn’t make it true and in this case only diminishes the value of your opinion. In 1967 you certainly could have expected Vietnam not to hit Hawaii. Due to the distance in the first place.
LOL, and the years drag on, and the explanations roll on year after year.
What explanations? If you see any flaws in my logic you are free to point them out. It is at the level of video game fanboy on your side so far.
The same is true of Russia.
It would have been so much better if Zelensky had ceded those two provinces to the Russians, and some think he was willing to do so early on, but was headed off by NATO and the CIA.
If you think that Russia's war aims were only about Donbas and NATO expansion, you are gravely mistaken. Russia's demands would amount to the end of a independent Ukraine. It is Putin who has given Ukraine only two choices: fight or die.
“”””It is not a buffer building, it is how Genghis Khan fights as contrary to Petraeus.
This small gains result in Ukrainian losses they can’t replace. Once they are done everything will be Russian.””””
Good ol Russia, the year 2025 and still fighting a war of dying until the other side can’t handle the losses that you do.
I asked you if this is where you expected your invading army to be at when your invasion was launched 3.5 year ago and you didn’t answer but I will say that I am pleased with how the last 3.5 years have affected NATO, Japan, Australia and South Korea, Taiwan and others, and how it has affected the Russian military.
The invasion sure didn’t turn out as I had expected.
It is the only way the real war is fought. The main idea is to make the enemy die at a much higher rate.
The war has barely affected NATO in any positive wat, as they have exhausted resources but lack the academic toolkit to extract any lessons from what they are seeing. Russian military has evolved into an undisputedly prime fighting force.
Donbas voted to be in Russia in 2014. Putin has outright rejected and forced them back to Ukraine. It is the biggest flaw in your narrative. The real issue for Russia is that Ukraine had to modes of existence: not Russia and anti-Russia. Russia accepted the former but not the latter.
Your lying about NATO with it’s new budgets, new weapon factories and new production, new military awareness and politics, and preparations is weird.
If you were being honest about your military, since you were a field grade officer in it (Major I guess), 4 years ago did you expect to see an impressive display of Russian military modernization and training while it invaded Ukraine, or did you truly believe that so many years later you would be offering up explanations of attrition and who could better absorb the massive losses of year after year, after year?
Russia conducted a mock referendum under military occupation. It was about as valid as the elections in North Korea. Anyone who is trying to promote these referenda as legitimate is not to be taken seriously.
I have no idea what are you arguing for. Are you hinting that Russia is not winning fast enough in face of all the gynormous resources that NATO has thrown at it and is still losing, resorting to petty terror and ridiculous propaganda due to the doctrinal deficiencies? What is the reference point?
Why was Russia rejecting the results of referendums for 8 years?
Not nearly, not nearly to the degree of Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of Ukranians have left the country and probably never will return. They evidently don’t want to fight for their country like posters on this site want them to. They have already lost 25% of their population since the war began. And the nation has been pulverized.
Zelensky did in fact want to end the war and release those two provinces and he evidently did not believe your theory of two choices. The peace proposal the Russians submitted yesterday, written up before the drone attack, did not demand that.
It is odd that people over here demand that Ukrainians fight to the last Ukranian to make themselves feel good and strut their hatred of Putin because he is a desparate dictator.
Do you remember from history that the United States partnered with Stalin in World War II? Stalin had already killed SEVEN million Ukrainians because they refused his farm collectivization efforts in about 1927. And he killed tens of millions of Russians before World War II.
Post 54 was very clear “If you were being honest about your military, since you were a field grade officer in it (Major I guess), 4 years ago did you expect to see an impressive display of Russian military modernization and training while it invaded Ukraine, or did you truly believe that so many years later you would be offering up explanations of attrition and who could better absorb the massive losses of year after year, after year?”
As a Russian officer, what did you truly anticipate how the invasion would go just before it was actually launched, when you first heard of the attack on Kiev what did you think the result would be on that first day of it?
The normal course of actions for Kiev was to sign into Istanbul agreements and save themselves a war. It reasonably considered it as a primary option as it was their only right choice. I didn’t exclude other developments though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.