Except Russia never said anything about about a 3 day operation. It came from General Milley during an interview with Fox News, where it was presented as a rough estimate of what American forces might do. You will not find a single statement from Russia to that effect.
Well, that was only being used to reinforce my point. Even if it’s not true, it’s still 4 years into a war with a much smaller country. The rest of comment still stands. Russia would certainly do worse against better armed nations or NATO.
It’s 4 years into a war with the entire industrial and financial power of NATO using a the people of Ukraine to fight Russia. All the weapons in Ukraine are NATO weapons and they’re being defeated in Ukraine. Don’t take my word for it though, here’s what NYT has to say on the subject https://archive.ph/ThjaB
Seems to me that you’re the one missing the point. Ukrainians use NATO weapons, but their actual skill in fighting is far higher than that of NATO armies that haven’t seen combat. In a recent NATO exercise, 10 Ukrainians wiped out two NATO battalions in 24h with drones, NATO troops couldn’t even locate the launch points. So, Russia is fighting a superior army to that of NATO that’s using best NATO equipment.
Not actually that surprising when you consider the nature of the privatized military industrial complex. Cheap and efficient weapons isn’t where the profit lies. You have low margins, you need to build a lot of factories and warehouses to store them, hire lots of workers, and so on. Making fancy toys like F-35s in artisanal batches is where it’s at. You design something that’s really expensive to build and that requires a ton of maintenance, and then you milk tax dollars off of it.
whos ammo stockpile that cant be replenished cos lack of productive forces and that could be used right now in the ME has been destroyed in the last few years? russia or us empire? you libs think wars are won by beign fast. you think this is fucking CS when you win by points. search war of attrition you might learn a concept or two.
It seems technology has once again made it easy to create military stalemates regardless of the nations fighting.
This seems like a hard lesson to learn for many in different countries. Perhaps those obstinate generals of World War One, those that ordered failed assaults, should be looked at differently, and not judged so harshly as history has.
The operation taking longer is exactly because NATO got involved. Now Russia switched to a war of attrition and making sure they don’t take on too many losses while they are also going to collapse the Ukrinazi state and forcing the EU and their bloodthirsty liberals to eat the cost of having thrown ukrainian men into the meat grinder.
The tactics and equipment used and destroyed are already NATO. The lifes lost, however, are not.
It’s like 4 years into a 3 day “special operation.” What makes you think Russia could do well against better armed nations, let alone NATO.
Except Russia never said anything about about a 3 day operation. It came from General Milley during an interview with Fox News, where it was presented as a rough estimate of what American forces might do. You will not find a single statement from Russia to that effect.
Well, that was only being used to reinforce my point. Even if it’s not true, it’s still 4 years into a war with a much smaller country. The rest of comment still stands. Russia would certainly do worse against better armed nations or NATO.
It’s 4 years into a war with the entire industrial and financial power of NATO using a the people of Ukraine to fight Russia. All the weapons in Ukraine are NATO weapons and they’re being defeated in Ukraine. Don’t take my word for it though, here’s what NYT has to say on the subject https://archive.ph/ThjaB
I know they aren’t exactly fighting on their own, but it’s also not the same as fighting NATO directly. Somehow you keep missing the point.
Seems to me that you’re the one missing the point. Ukrainians use NATO weapons, but their actual skill in fighting is far higher than that of NATO armies that haven’t seen combat. In a recent NATO exercise, 10 Ukrainians wiped out two NATO battalions in 24h with drones, NATO troops couldn’t even locate the launch points. So, Russia is fighting a superior army to that of NATO that’s using best NATO equipment.
Now that is some good evidence. Surprising that NATO doesn’t use drones.
Not actually that surprising when you consider the nature of the privatized military industrial complex. Cheap and efficient weapons isn’t where the profit lies. You have low margins, you need to build a lot of factories and warehouses to store them, hire lots of workers, and so on. Making fancy toys like F-35s in artisanal batches is where it’s at. You design something that’s really expensive to build and that requires a ton of maintenance, and then you milk tax dollars off of it.
One of the many reasons I’m not rich.
Picture frame
whos ammo stockpile that cant be replenished cos lack of productive forces and that could be used right now in the ME has been destroyed in the last few years? russia or us empire? you libs think wars are won by beign fast. you think this is fucking CS when you win by points. search war of attrition you might learn a concept or two.
It seems technology has once again made it easy to create military stalemates regardless of the nations fighting.
This seems like a hard lesson to learn for many in different countries. Perhaps those obstinate generals of World War One, those that ordered failed assaults, should be looked at differently, and not judged so harshly as history has.
Because people seem to just do this
The operation taking longer is exactly because NATO got involved. Now Russia switched to a war of attrition and making sure they don’t take on too many losses while they are also going to collapse the Ukrinazi state and forcing the EU and their bloodthirsty liberals to eat the cost of having thrown ukrainian men into the meat grinder.
The tactics and equipment used and destroyed are already NATO. The lifes lost, however, are not.