Bobjones
Active Member
This is a war against the west more than it's a war against ukraine. Wars like this are battles of attrition. Never was going to end overnight.
You can never become a Westerner:’ China’s top diplomat urges Japan and South Korea to align with Beijing and ‘revitalize Asia
- Thread starter DOS_patos
- Start date
This is a war against the west more than it's a war against ukraine. Wars like this are battles of attrition. Never was going to end overnight.
Swabbie
Active Member
It should've been over in days if Russia was anywhere close to the military power they claimed to be. They were having trouble refueling their trucks like 30 miles from their own border, shit was ridiculous.
Bobjones
Active Member
Lol at a war against a nation of Ukraines geographic scale populated with millions of people with the support of almost the entire western world, including wealthy nations in Asia, ending in days. They can't just go in decimating the entire country with nukes From the very outset of the war we already had military generals saying this would likely become a drawn out affair, since even if Russia took a more brutal approach, there'd be Ukrainian combatants all over the country continuing to put up resistance against the occupiers. It's ones thing to bomb a country to hell, it's another's to actually hold onto power.
You guys are high off huffing the American propaganda machine.
Swabbie
Active Member
No, you are being intellectually dishonest though. At the beginning of this war no one was thinking Ukraine had a chance in hell. The U.S. was literally begging Zelenskyy to leave Kyiv and offered him extraction out of country. The aid to Ukraine at the beginning of this war and the aid today are two completely different things. At the beginning of this war, the nicest shit they received from the collective west were Javelins and NLAWs. Russia had ample time to complete their objectives had they shown even a drop of competence. If you'll recall, Russia had VDV right on the outskirts of Kyiv at the very beginning of this fight but then got pushed out once their supply lines started to falter. Russia had control of Hostomel airport within hours of the start of the invasion. Hostomel is 15 miles from Kyiv. They sent a ton of VDV in and captured it only to lose it because they didn't maintain support for those very same VDV.
No shit it's a different beast to hold a country but the thing is, they never took it to begin with. They got beat back almost immediately because the Russian military is structured like shit. Logistics wins wars.
Saying "Russia outclassed Ukraine and should've won easily" is American propaganda is wild since it's Russia itself that constantly tells the world it's super powerful. All I'm doing is pointing out that if Russia was as hard as it claims to be, this should've been easy.
Last edited:
Bobjones
Active Member
Ukraine had its own military equipment and American military training well before the war began. They also had 24/7 intelligence from the West to infuence their tactics. They weren't starting from zero. It didn't need to rely on billions in aid until it became clear to the West that they'd get trounced without it, and that sanctions weren't working. Again, taking enough land of a country the sheer size of Ukraine to the point they could claim a win within less than a year is absurd and anyone who thought the opposite is ignorant (as I was) or biased. Noticed I wrote "military generals", since they actually have some knowledgeable takes when they're not being puppets for the state.
Please explain how a nation "wins" or "takes a country to begin with" in the first several months of engagement. How did all that work out for the worlds utmost super power in Vietnam and Iraq? Russia doesn't even have full scale mobilization.
Ultimately, you're putting too much weight on Russias claims of supremacy. Every military superpower does this. They're political games, power plays, deterrents, etc. The reality is, war is barely ever quick and decisive.
Swabbie
Active Member
Ukraine had it's old Soviet inheritance, old and in disrepair. They did NOT have the massive amount of western-trained troops they have now. This was the imbalance at the start of the conflict. Note that the Aircraft, Helicopters, MLRS systems, Tanks, and Armored vehicles possessed by Russia at this point outclassed anything the Ukrainians could bring to bear.
U.S. intelligence thought Kyiv was at threat of falling within days at the beginning of this conflcit.
US officials concerned Kyiv could fall to Russia within days: reports
U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concerns that Ukraine’s capital city of Kyiv could fall to Russia within days, according to multiple reports.Newsweek, citing three U.S. officials, said&n…
thehill.com
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/25/russia-ukraine-friday-invasion-overview/
Now, on to your postulating.
I'll allow you to re-read my post for this one.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
Russia isn't as strong as we though, but let's not discount the fact that taking over a country is harder than just beating the shit out of them. If Russia really wanted to flex, they probably could have, but they don't want to turn all of Ukraine into rubble, they want to take it over.
The same shit happened with us and Iraq. Our government made it seem like it would be quick, but it wasn't.
The same shit happened with us and Iraq. Our government made it seem like it would be quick, but it wasn't.
Swabbie
Active Member
No one is saying that it's easy. It's a strawman introduced by bro above. What is being said is that Russia is taking an L with this war.
And the invasion and toppling of Saddam was quick. It was over in a little over a month. Iraq is also nearly 7,000 miles away from the U.S. Ukraine literally borders Russia. It's a false equivalence to suggest this is in any way similar to our war in Iraq. the Iraqi government was toppled, Kyiv still stands and is pushing back. The Iraq government and military were completely defeated and a new government was installed.
The war was bullshit though, I don't want that to get lost in all of this. We should've never invaded Iraq.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
lol Bruh are you on George Bush's street team? Remember they declared that the war was over in under a month and then stayed there fighting skirmishes for years. Even Bush admitted he was wrong when he declared the war was over. The two situations are different for sure, but the point was that just because there is a gap in power doesn't mean one force can just steamroll the other.
Russia is taking an L for sure, but they're still dangerous. Now if they didn't have nukes, this war would probably be over by now.
Bobjones
Active Member
Strawman? You literally wrote Russia should have ended this within days. Not even month's. Days. That suggests it should have been an easy task. All I'm saying is, no, it's not. Despite what any government wants to say to make their military and economic might out to be grander than anything imaginable, the reality is these wars take time. It's you putting unrealistic stock into the war games and propaganda these states use to essentially "big themselves up". You've been duped.
Not to mention it doesn't seem like Putin wants to level Kyiv to the ground, which he absolutely could do with bombardment. The Kremlin is taking a more measured approach to seeking their territory gains, which I'm sure has much to do with the difficult logistics of operating over such large distances (hence making sprawling gains from the occupied, ethnically russian east) as it does with drawing out Western resource depletion and instability. As I said... war against the west.
Really, does anyone but the Kremlin know what the true objectives are? Do they want the entire country, do they want a pro Russia government installed? Do they simply want more territory? The potential aims are numerous.
As for Iraq, the US deposed a government in a country a fraction of the size of Ukraine with a fraction of the military capability. Legit third world. But my point was they didn't take shit in an actually meaningful sense. The insurgencies lasted the entire time and as soon as their sorry asses left the country the Taliban took over in, what, weeks? Russia could level government and military facilities in the capital and yet the same thing would happen. Pockets of insurgency all over Ukraine putting up constant resistance. If anything, the American tactic of going in all out, guns blazing taught the Russians to sensibly avoid doing just that. Get real bro.
Bobjones
Active Member
What's really funny is thinking the Russians should follow an American blueprint on war. Going in and decimating everything to immediately set up a weak puppet government that the vast majority of citizens don't intend on supporting and are instead fully willing to fight against tooth and nail? With seemingly no thought put towards how they sustain their presence with anything but continual ineffective arms against wave after wave of insurgents who want nothing more than to destroy the occupier?
It's much more complex than that. And Russia doesn't seem to want to head down that path. Understand the goals, then figure out the game plan.
It's much more complex than that. And Russia doesn't seem to want to head down that path. Understand the goals, then figure out the game plan.
DOS_patos
Unverified Legion of Trill member
I think the us has done a great job at puppet govts and mercenaries hired by the cia.
Other than France and Britain…..who else runs the world?
And that there is the problem
Swabbie
Active Member
Nigga, I specifically qualified my statement with if Russia was anywhere close to the military power they claimed to be.
So literally everything you've been arguing against has been a strawman. Suggesting that I have said anything close to "this shit is easy" without any nuance whatsoever is a fucking strawman.
Long story short, you are wrong. Do me a solid and do an objective comparison of the Ukrainian military pre-invasion and the Iraqi army pre-invasion. I'm asking in earnest.
Ukraine was not a well-functioning first world economy prior to this invasion, they were one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. They were weak, that's just a fact. Russia's L is fumbling the massive advantage they had in manpower, technology, proximity, and influence they had in Ukraine. War is hard but your fave Putin and his boys are prosecuting this war terribly.
Monk, there is a difference between fighting an actual military and fighting an insurgency. The fight against the government was over in a month, dude. What came next was the insurgency and small shit. Baghdad, however, had fallen by April.
Firdos Square statue destruction - Wikipedia
Remember that famous scene where them Iraqi boys pulled down the statue of Saddam? Yeah, that was April. Again, y'all being real dishonest here in suggesting otherwise.
Last edited:
Bobjones
Active Member
That qualification, together with everything else you wrote, says that Russia, being the supreme military power in the world that they claim to be, should have taken Ukraine in days. Exactly your words. Those words are BS and I've already laid out why, from actual Russian goals in the conflict (which don't necessarily match those assigned by Western commentators and strategists) to the difficulties of war in a large, populous country. Do you think Russia ever really wanted to immediately take down Kyiv and put in place a puppet government? If you're going to make these claims, they have to fall in line with what Russias actual goals in the war are. If you simply think they should have won more territory by this point in the war, fair enough. But you literally wrote "take the country". Stop the side stepping.
Swabbie
Active Member
Okay, I'll attack this from a different angle. You've not laid out a thing, nor do you know what is going on inside the Kremlin so miss me with your weak hypothesizing masquerading as informed opinion. You are basing your argument on your own assumption of what the goals of the Kremlin are and are operating as if though it were fact.
Separate from reality, Russian claims to be a military power of a certain degree suggested they would win this conflict easily. My statements were critical of Russian claims, not suggesting what should have happened realistically because, realistically, Russia isn't that strong. How I qualified my statement, in addition to everything I've said thus far, stands on firm ground my nigga. The Belarusian border is 77 miles from Kyiv. 77 miles.
They very obviously made a massive push to Kyiv in the early goings of the war and failed. This is objective fact. This is not biased opinion, this is what actually happened. They failed their objective to take Kyiv and shifted goals to maintaining their possessions in the Donbass, Crimea, around Melitopol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This is supported by the Battle of Kyiv, won by Ukraine, and Russia openly accepting terms negotiated in Turkey last year.
Russia pledges to cut back operations around Kyiv – DW – 03/29/2022
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have concluded a round of peace talks, with both sides expressing cautious optimism. Russia says it will reduce some military activity "to increase mutual trust."
www.dw.com
Last edited:
DOS_patos
Unverified Legion of Trill member
We may lose the top spot in hardware….
But they are not real world battle tested.
Could they overwhelm with sheer numbers, yes.
As far as their capitalism…..nah. They shit going south fast. What makes china money is going other cheaper less aggressive places.
Plus all them loans not coming in and the infrastructure they plan on taking because they didn’t get paid might be useless if the local populations rebel
Bobjones
Active Member
Okay, I'll attack this from a different angle. You've not laid out a thing, nor do you know what is going on inside the Kremlin so miss me with your weak hypothesizing masquerading as informed opinion. You are basing your argument on your own assumption of what the goals of the Kremlin are and are operating as if though it were fact.
Separate from reality, Russian claims to be a military power of a certain degree suggested they would win this conflict easily. My statements were critical of Russian claims, not suggesting what should have happened realistically because, realistically, Russia isn't that strong. How I qualified my statement, in addition to everything I've said thus far, stands on firm ground my nigga. The Belarusian border is 77 miles from Kyiv. 77 miles.
They very obviously made a massive push to Kyiv in the early goings of the war and failed. This is objective fact. This is not biased opinion, this is what actually happened. They failed their objective to take Kyiv and shifted goals to maintaining their possessions in the Donbass, Crimea, around Melitopol, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. This is supported by the Battle of Kyiv, won by Ukraine, and Russia openly accepting terms negotiated in Turkey last year.
Russia pledges to cut back operations around Kyiv – DW – 03/29/2022
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have concluded a round of peace talks, with both sides expressing cautious optimism. Russia says it will reduce some military activity "to increase mutual trust."
Not saying they're facts, just merely speculating away from the "taking over the country" objectives some people hold Russia to. I did mention that no one but the Kremlin really knows what the real goals or planned end game is.
Bro c'mon now... Russia's military is strong. Look at any measure of man power, technology, hardware and strategy. They're one of the strongest in the world and I can only assume the reason an American would have the audacity to claim otherwise is because your government has hammered anti Russian hatred into your populace since the cold war. Brainwashed against socialism for the same reasons.
Russia never made specific claims about taking over the country. Only to take nazism out and liberate ethnic Russians from western encroachment. Their claims of military strength are simply based on their relative ability, manpower and hardware compared to other nations around the world. Couple that with the prestige of historical exploits and the usual dose of propaganda and political war games that may sensationalize and overstate abilities in order to act as deterrents and play up global supremacy against the west.
If you're buying into that at the expense of being rational about their real power, that's on you. What ppl shouldn't do is say absurd shit like "Russia should have taken over the country in days based on their own claims" when it's you who's running vague "Russian claims" through your biased lens and you who is merely speculating on what their goals are. Their goals in Ukraine have to fall in line with the claims you're making for their military or your statement is irrelevant.
Which brings me to the next point and you said it yourself... 70 add mile from Belarus to Kyiv. The sheer manpower and hardware against a weak foe. It's laughable you think Russia was actually trying to make a real concerted effort to take Kyiv. Like really think about it...