Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[Dalit]

The US/NATO are all talk and no trousers, bunch of Hollywood Rambo wannabes who are brave fighting against third world tin pot dictatorships and peasant goat herders, and even then they manage to lose in the end.

Afghanistan is a very vivid reminder. US/NATO ganged up for 20 years. Yet the end result is humiliating. Of course Russia is a power of a different magnitude.

 

[Paul2]

The initial expectation was that the Russian military WOULD NOT incur heavy losses. Then it was downgraded to SHOULD NOT suffer heavy losses. Now it is downgraded more to WILL suffer heavy losses. The Russian military is suffering heavy losses from and adversary that is smaller and is literally begging for help. Against US/NATO? It will be Desert Storm redux.

BTW, Russia has now passed the number of losses of Iraq in OIF.

 

[Oldman1]

Expectations by whom? If the Taliban and the Iraqis had the same degree of support and equipment as the Ukrainians do, the US would have suffered the same fate as the Russians are suffering now. You also seem to be blind to the losses the US/NATO would suffer if they were to go up against an even bearable peer. You haven't fought a peer since WWII.

Oh you mean kind of like the Vietnam war which the Russians supplied weaponry? And then the U.S. respond in kind when Russia invaded Afghanistan during the 1980s and pulled out after 10 years of warfare which by the way the Russians have suffered more in couple of months compared to that war. And then you have the Gulf War which Saddam called the mother of all battles or Vietnams in his word, saw what happened there. If the Russians are stupid enough to go and fight NATO, by all means let them. They have a hard time with a handful of HIMARS, imagine having hundreds of HIMARS in U.S. arsenal alone with longer range weaponry then what is provided to Ukraine, or even the M270s which has double the firepower of the HIMARS, and I haven't even talked about the U.S. Air Force and other NATO air force which will be backing up the Ukrainian troops and mechanized units that would love that support.

 

[Corax]

Oh you mean kind of like the Vietnam war which the Russians supplied weaponry? And then the U.S. respond in kind when Russia invaded Afghanistan during the 1980s and pulled out after 10 years of warfare which by the way the Russians have suffered more in couple of months compared to that war. And then you have the Gulf War which Saddam called the mother of all battles or Vietnams in his word, saw what happened there. If the Russians are stupid enough to go and fight NATO, by all means let them. They have a hard time with a handful of HIMARS, imagine having hundreds of HIMARS in U.S. arsenal alone with longer range weaponry then what is provided to Ukraine, or even the M270s which has double the firepower of the HIMARS, and I haven't even talked about the U.S. Air Force and other NATO air force which will be backing up the Ukrainian troops and mechanized units that would love that support.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The US lost in Vietnam when they were up against an adversary supported by an apposing superpower, the Soviets suffered the same fate in Afghanistan. But you fail to recognise that the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan even in the absence of an apposing superpower supporting the Iraqis and Afghans. Oh sure, the US may have inflicted immense military force on the Iraqis and Afghans and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, much like the Soviets and North Vietnamese, but the military is merely an extension of policy, and that's what you Americans can't seem to understand. Iraq is pretty much in the control of Iran, and Afghanistan has returned to Taliban rule and a proxy for Pakistan. So what "victory" did the the US military achieve in either of these two theatres? As for Ukraine, that's little evidence to suggest the token US and NATO support is having much affect on the Russian main political objective of their military campaign, i.e. the liberation of mostly ethnic Russians in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Oh sure, you'll inflict plenty of pain on the Russians, but at what economic and political cost? This is what you people don't see to understand.

You also fail to recognise the immense losses NATO and the US would suffer in a potential conflict with Russia in Europe... They're not the Taliban with vintage Lee Enfield rifles. Lucky for you your generals and politicians recognise this fact, otherwise they would have directly intervened by now.

 

[The SC]

 

[F-22Raptor]

You are on the losing side bud. The Russians are advancing as we speak. No amount of shells can stop Russian gains.

-Russia has less territory now than they did in April and haven’t gained any territory in the last week or two. HIMARS are taking its toll

- they’ve lost a third of their armored force and expended 70% of their PGMs and now rely on 1960s era antiship missiles for land attack.

- Russia has strategically lost already. Economically done, NATO expanded, and their military finished for decades.

The US/West have won, now it’s all about continuing to exhaust the Russians.

 

[gambit]

Expectations by whom?

Pretty much by the world, including US.

If the Taliban and the Iraqis had the same degree of support and equipment as the Ukrainians do, the US would have suffered the same fate as the Russians are suffering now.

For starter, there is no way the Taliban could wield weapons systems beyond modified Toyota trucks. Like it or not, at the risk of being politically incorrect, they ain't that smart.

Next, the Iraqi military was a formal military and did received enough Soviet weaponry to become that kind of military. Since Iraq received no help from the Soviet Union and China during Desert Storm and was defeated, whose fault is/are that? With Ukraine, the EU is in the immediate geographical proximity and able, with the US, rendered assistance. So why no one else besides the Soviet Union and China helped Iraq? The 'If' you are positing is at best academic and no one would use in planning their national security policy.

You also seem to be blind to the losses the US/NATO would suffer if they were to go up against an even bearable peer. You haven't fought a peer since WWII.

Desert Storm was not formulated for Iraq. How the US and allies executed their roles came from the Cold War. Now it is clear that the Russian military have a rather disdainful view of airpower, as in how shiddy was the VKS, US/NATO airpower would own the airspaces over all battlefields. That 'Highway of Death' in Iraq? How about the 'Highway of Death' in Ukraine outside of Kyiv? There would be no famous 'Left Hook' like in Iraq, but there would be something similar the B-52s would give to Russian troops.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The US lost in Vietnam when they were up against an adversary supported by an apposing superpower, the Soviets suffered the same fate in Afghanistan. But you fail to recognise that the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan even in the absence of an apposing superpower supporting the Iraqis and Afghans.

That argument is so stale it could be used for salad croutons. No military academies uses hope to teach their students because hope is exactly what you said. That if you face the US, you can hope that someone more powerful will help you and you will sort of 'defeat' the US after you suffer great casualties and the US eventually got tire of the war and just leave.

 

[The SC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547691500468723714

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547344283556093954

 

[F-22Raptor]

He can't even identify an M777, or doesn't like to admit when evidence clearly shows one being destroyed, while most other military people clearly can. He claims to have "served" in Ukraine and "field stripped" an M777. You then be the judge whether he is a fake and a joker. See his posting history, he makes up all sorts of crap, even his own identity.



Expectations by whom? If the Taliban and the Iraqis had the same degree of support and equipment as the Ukrainians do, the US would have suffered the same fate as the Russians are suffering now. You also seem to be blind to the losses the US/NATO would suffer if they were to go up against an even bearable peer. You haven't fought a peer since WWII.

The US military of Desert Storm would skull drag the Russians through the dirt, much less todays.

The US would have delivered such devastating force in the first week it would have completely collapsed the Ukrainian government and military thereby avoiding Russias current scenario.

Russian military performance has been pathetic across every spectrum.

 

[Corax]

Pretty much by the world, including US.


For starter, there is no way the Taliban could wield weapons systems beyond modified Toyota trucks. Like it or not, at the risk of being politically incorrect, they ain't that smart.

Next, the Iraqi military was a formal military and did received enough Soviet weaponry to become that kind of military. Since Iraq received no help from the Soviet Union and China during Desert Storm and was defeated, whose fault is/are that? With Ukraine, the EU is in the immediate geographical proximity and able, with the US, rendered assistance. So why no one else besides the Soviet Union and China helped Iraq? The 'If' you are positing is at best academic and no one would use in planning their national security policy.


Desert Storm was not formulated for Iraq. How the US and allies executed their roles came from the Cold War. Now it is clear that the Russian military have a rather disdainful view of airpower, as in how shiddy was the VKS, US/NATO airpower would own the airspaces over all battlefields. That 'Highway of Death' in Iraq? How about the 'Highway of Death' in Ukraine outside of Kyiv? There would be no famous 'Left Hook' like in Iraq, but there would be something similar the B-52s would give to Russian troops.


That argument is so stale it could be used for salad croutons. No military academies uses hope to teach their students because hope is exactly what you said. That if you face the US, you can hope that someone more powerful will help you and you will sort of 'defeat' the US after you suffer great casualties and the US eventually got tire of the war and just leave.

So much inanity in your myopic world view I don't know quite where to begin. The racist attitude you have to those "dumb" Taliban, they were the same "mujahadeen" the US trained to use stringer missiles with great affect against the Soviets. The fact that they defeated you with just Toyota pickup trucks is not because of a lack of aptitude on their part, but lack of support from a larger power. But they doesn't change ground realities, they defeated you and are in power, the US ran away.

You can spin Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam any which way you please, the ground realty is that the US forces failed in their ultimate strategic objectives, against non-peer opponents. You can't rewrite history. And if your military were even 1% as confident as you armchair US fanboys on a Pakistani defense forum of all places, they would have intervened to save a European "democracy" by now. Why haven't they? Nukes? But even there you believe the US can prevail against the Russians, right?

The US military of Desert Storm would skull drag the Russians through the dirt, much less todays.

The US would have delivered such devastating force in the first week it would have completely collapsed the Ukrainian government and military thereby avoiding Russias current scenario.

Russian military performance has been pathetic across every spectrum.

Then what's stopping you from saving your Frankenstein Ukraine puppet? Go for it! Either put up, or STFU, your bark is louder than you bite.

 

[ckf]

The US military of Desert Storm would skull drag the Russians through the dirt, much less todays.

The US would have delivered such devastating force in the first week it would have completely collapsed the Ukrainian government and military thereby avoiding Russias current scenario.

Russian military performance has been pathetic across every spectrum.

What devastation, NATO is too scared to fight a real war and created economic sanctions to fight a proxy war in Ukraine. NATO never won a land occupation war, and lost vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Now they are facing economic depression and looking at a complete defeat on the battlefield as well. American/EU this winter will try to avoid a war at all cost once Putin reaches Dnipro river. When Iran openly allies with Russia and BRICS countries unite to defy G7 Russian sanctions, American/EU hegemony becomes toothless.

They called it Putin's curse, Boris Johnson quit, Draghi quit, Macron lost majority gov't in France, Abe assassinated, and Biden is officially the least popular US president in history( worse than carter in polls). Putin doesn't yap like Biden and is forcing true regime change in G7.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The US lost in Vietnam when they were up against an adversary supported by an apposing superpower, the Soviets suffered the same fate in Afghanistan. But you fail to recognise that the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan even in the absence of an apposing superpower supporting the Iraqis and Afghans. Oh sure, the US may have inflicted immense military force on the Iraqis and Afghans and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, much like the Soviets and North Vietnamese, but the military is merely an extension of policy, and that's what you Americans can't seem to understand. Iraq is pretty much in the control of Iran, and Afghanistan has returned to Taliban rule and a proxy for Pakistan. So what "victory" did the the US military achieve in either of these two theatres? As for Ukraine, that's little evidence to suggest the token US and NATO support is having much affect on the Russian main political objective of their military campaign, i.e. the liberation of mostly ethnic Russians in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Oh sure, you'll inflict plenty of pain on the Russians, but at what economic and political cost? This is what you people don't see to understand.

You also fail to recognise the immense losses NATO and the US would suffer in a potential conflict with Russia in Europe... They're not the Taliban with vintage Lee Enfield rifles. Lucky for you your generals and politicians recognise this fact, otherwise they would have directly intervened by now.

Russians are also inflicting enormous pain on the West. Just look at the amount of demonstrations happening in the Western countries, the inflation that is getting out of control, and most importantly the challenge that Russia posted to the so-called "World Order" where fiat money such as the US Dollar and Euro were the reigning currencies. Today, many countries are abandoning the fiat money, and using other currencies for trade. This is the biggest challenge to the Western hegemony over the rest of the world. If people are not gonna take the fraudulent paper money, how will the West loot their resources? The West is indeed in fast decline.

 

[BHAN85]

The Russians are committing mass war crimes, murder, rape, looting against an innocent peaceful country whose only crime is wanting to integrate with the West and leave the backwards Russia behind.

Your on the wrong side of history

A side doing wrong doesnt mean the other side is doing right.
Both sides, West and Russia, means destruction for Ukrainian common people.

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547537716077895680

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547732891571851266