Russia’s war in Ukraine is far from over

Task and Purpose ^ | Published Mar 26, 2022 2:17 PM | Andrew Milburn

[ought-six]

“A warrior’s chief concern is personal survival. Soldiers fight for causes. Warriors fight for personal aggrandizement.”

I could cite numerous examples to the contrary.

But, on a basic level: A Comanche brave was a warrior, and sought personal glory (aggrandizement), as it was his culture. But he didn’t give a shit about personal survival, and would fight like hell to protect his family (cause).

[SunkenCiv]

Putin's trying to acquire by threats what he can't achieve by yet another of his wars of aggression. Biden and Putin are indeed on the same side, Biden having worked for years to undermine Ukraine, just like Putin has. So far, Putin's managed to destroy property, destroy and lose equipment, kill thousands of people, send thousands of his stooges to their deaths and disfigurement, and crush the Russian economy. His war turned rapidly into just another Russian fiasco, and Ukrainians aren't buying his Russian BS.

[ought-six]

“That's the difference between warriors and soldiers - warriors are ultimately loyal only to themselves, whereas soldiers are loyal to someone else or some cause.”

Warriors throughout history would disagree with you. Leonidas and the Spartans at Thermopylae were certainly warriors; yet, they died for Sparta: "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by; that here, obedient to their laws, we lie." History is replete with examples of soldiers having loyalty only to themselves, and whose cause is often just his own survival. That is not at all to demean soldiers. I am merely pointing out that you can't pigeon-hole warriors and soldiers into two restricted categories: There are many exceptions, and many overlaps.

[miserare]

That’s a real stretch.

[miserare]

So, these are the guys who are winning? (according to MSM, including FOX.)

[MinorityRepublican]

It’s just not part of the Russian DNA, as it has been bred out of them over centuries of being told and shown they are noting but an expendable commodity to their rulers. Russians tend to see themselves not as individuals, but as a collective, exploitable and expendable.

Cannon fodder. Quantity has a quality of its own. But communism has destroyed the Russian soul. So they are not longer reproducing. So they no longer have the cannon fodder advantage that they've used to subjugate their rivals.

[ought-six]

“Cannon fodder. Quantity has a quality of its own. But communism has destroyed the Russian soul. So they are not longer reproducing. So they no longer have the cannon fodder advantage that they’ve used to subjugate their rivals.”

Yup.

[Zhang Fei]

Alex Christoforou at about the nine minute mark of this video breaks down how ridiculous the NATO numbers are and amount to the Ukrainian military killing a higher percentage of Russians in 28 days than the Nazi military did in 41 days in the same area in WWII:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWSdfUb7omQ

https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/03/i-
 

In recent years, it's hard to think of too many instances of high intensity warfare involving fairly well-armed adversaries - including one of the superpowers - that was stalled the way the Russian invasion is. For a few weeks, the Tet Offensive was one of them. It is a bit long in the tooth, but the closest thing I can think off. During a two-month stretch, the US and South Vietnam lost an average of 175 KIA/MIA a day, combined, compared to the NVA/Vietcong's 750 dead a day. Note that the US and South Vietnam were defending, and the NVA/Vietcong were attacking. The US had air supremacy and fire superiority, and the NVA/Vietcong lacked the expensive man-portable PGM's, effective from a mile away, with which the Ukrainians have been supplied.

The NVA/Vietcong had the benefit of $3.6b in current dollars of equipment per year in Russian aid.

Under the rule of Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Union initially supported North Vietnam out of “fraternal solidarity”. However, as the war escalated, Khrushchev urged the North Vietnamese leadership to give up the quest of liberating South Vietnam. He continued by rejecting an offer of assistance made by the North Vietnamese government, and instead told them to enter negotiations in the United Nations Security Council.[90] After Khrushchev’s ousting, Brezhnev resumed aiding the communist resistance in Vietnam. In February 1965, Premier Kosygin visited Hanoi with a dozen Soviet air force generals and economic experts.[91] Over the course of the war, Brezhnev’s regime would ultimately ship $450 million worth of arms annually to North Vietnam.[92]

They also received substantial amounts of Chinese weaponry and other equipment:
 

Military aid given to North Vietnam by China^[3]: 379

Year	Guns	Artillery pieces	Bullets	Artillery shells	Radio transmitters	Telephones	Tanks	Planes	Automobiles
1964	80,500	1,205	25,240,000	335,000	426	2,941	16	18	25
1965	220,767	4,439	114,010,000	1,800,000	2,779	9,502	?	2	114
1966	141,531	3,362	178,120,000	1,066,000	1,568	2,235	?	?	96
1967	146,600	3,984	147,000,000	1,363,000	2,464	2,289	26	70	435
1968	219,899	7,087	247,920,000	2,082,000	1,854	3,313	18	?	454
1969	139,900	3,906	119,117,000	1,357,000	2,210	3,453	?	?	162
1970	101,800	2,212	29,010,000	397,000	950	1,600	?	?	?
1971	143,100	7,898	57,190,000	1,899,000	2,464	4,424	80	4	4,011
1972	189,000	9,238	40,000,000	2,210,000	4,370	5,905	220	14	8,758
1973	233,500	9,912	40,000,000	2,210,000	4,335	6,447	120	36	1,210
1974	164,500	6,406	30,000,000	1,390,000	5,148	4,663	80	?	506
1975	141,800	4,880	20,600,000	965,000	2,240	2,150	?	20	?
Total	1,922,897	64,529	1,048,207,000	17,074,000	30,808	48,922	560	164	15,771