you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment
I mean the fact that they are still standing is a pretty solid endorsement. By your logic Kyiv should have fallen in the first week like Russia was claiming it would.
Specific example off the top of my head is the cruise missile strikes against the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet using Storm Shadows I believe iirc
because NATO, read the US and UK won’t let them negotiate a peace deal, so they keep hauling men off the streets and throwing them to the front line meat grinder
Those are US and NATO military objectives intended to prevent populations from industrializing so they remain dependent on your productive capacity and exchange their natural resources to obtain goods you produce.
Russia doesn’t want that. Russia wants to neutralize a security threat on its border.
Blitzkrieg / shock and awe tactics don’t work if you intend to govern its victims. Soviet military doctrine was more oriented towards drawn out siege warfare letting your factories wear down your enemies. Russia seems to be employing that doctrine here too.
This war was never going to be a short affair, even if the Atlantic printed stories saying so.
Mostly old Soviet stock piles and some western weapons. You don’t actually believe that the entire Ukrainian army is being supplied by NATO do you?
you aren’t getting off that easy. you said western equipment offers a distinct advantage by being higher quality than russian. Ukraine has NATO arms, they still count if Ukraine is using kalahnikovs, so direct me to the successes of the Ukrainian military that can be attributed to the sublime quality of yankee equipment
I mean the fact that they are still standing is a pretty solid endorsement. By your logic Kyiv should have fallen in the first week like Russia was claiming it would.
Specific example off the top of my head is the cruise missile strikes against the headquarters of the Black Sea fleet using Storm Shadows I believe iirc
“by my logic” i didn’t say ukraine would have crumbled without NATO arms. i’m questioning how superior and helpful NATO arms are, remember?
but if the only thing it’s helped with has been striking Russia’s fleet in a war being fought on land in the east, lmao that seems very consequential
Removed by mod
because NATO, read the US and UK won’t let them negotiate a peace deal, so they keep hauling men off the streets and throwing them to the front line meat grinder
eventually they will have to negotiate
Removed by mod
Because Russia isn’t seeking to destroy Ukraine.
Those are US and NATO military objectives intended to prevent populations from industrializing so they remain dependent on your productive capacity and exchange their natural resources to obtain goods you produce.
Russia doesn’t want that. Russia wants to neutralize a security threat on its border.
Blitzkrieg / shock and awe tactics don’t work if you intend to govern its victims. Soviet military doctrine was more oriented towards drawn out siege warfare letting your factories wear down your enemies. Russia seems to be employing that doctrine here too.
This war was never going to be a short affair, even if the Atlantic printed stories saying so.