Why is the Russian army incapable of large scale offensives? Why did they fail to capture Nikolaev, Kharkov, Sumy AND Kiev?
Literally the only major cities Russia has taken is Kherson(no fight) and Mariupol(2 month siege with the whole city being destroyed and thousands of casualties) and both of these are relatively small cities in comparison to places like Kharkov or Odessa
>Why is the Russian army incapable of large scale offensives?
its as simple that secret police sub-morons make for even worse military leaders than they do presidents
the real question is any nation cable of invading a modern nation?
Finland and Sweden will never enter NATO
I wish I could just be brainless subhuman government employee without any responsibilities
god i hope that is true they are just dead weight
that same question was posed pre 1914
they already know they are winning so they keep it save
the Russians still have more soldiers missing from last time than we fielded in total, also, we captured 30 000 anti-tank mines from them they figured would be useful against a country that could field 30 tanks in total
ok who is the Nazi Germany in our timeline?
Putin, obviously, and Ukraine is UK
youtube.com
ok and how successful were you guys when you invaded Russia?
>ok and how successful were you guys
of the European countries that participated in fighting, only three survived without having their capitals occupied, those capitals are London, Moscow and Helsinki
>Why is the Russian army incapable of large scale offensives?
Because they're purposely slow-rolling this war until winter when the energy crisis will cause populist uprisings throughout Europe and the toppling of the zogbot regimes. Russia could have went HAM and ended this war long ago, but they have a broader strategic goal in mind.
yea and you became a Russian colony. u guys are not so special lol
nazi germany came afterwards, once the treaty of versilie blamed the outbreak of ww1 entirely on Germany (Russia post Ukraine humiliation, or china post failed Taiwan invasion?). Nevertheless, if I were to look at a historic period instructive for our contemporary situation, it would be either the reformation or the French revolution.
actually stupid take, Putin simply sucks as a leader, even Syria is still ongoing disaster with multiple foreign powers in their borders
They can and they did that, but they suffered issues due to lack of troops (150-200 thousand men is not much and Ukrainians outnumber them), so they decided to stop with that and opted for a slow and casualty sparing methods in limited geographical area, where they can fully exploit their firepower superiority.
There's no major disparity between Russian troops and Ukrainian troops, or at least there wasn't originally. Ukraine has been rebuilding it's army with Western support for years. It's not Americans fighting Iraqis in a desert under the conditions of total aerial supremacy.
Russians could've finished the job but they would inevitably suffer serious casualties, which would mean almost half of their ground forces would be out and they would have to rebuild them. They simply chose the most efficient way to achieve their political goals. That's what wars are about.
Im guessing the inital idea was to win the war by showing boldness by actually entering Ukraine, with a surprise assault on the capital, and basically conquer Ukraine with almost no casualities, just like happened in Crimea, thinking the Ukrainians would be to scared to shoot back. I think this is proven by seeing how unprepared the Russians were to actually shoot back up north, and how the logistics weren't exactly planned out (Conscripts werent even told that they were entering Ukraine). Well, unlike 2014, Ukrainians shot back hard, and the initial assault was a big miscalculation on Russian part. I'm guessing assaults on Kharkhov, Melitopol and Kherson were just a backup plan in case Kiev assault went wrong so they would at least have a foothold in Ukraine until they draw up better plans. Well i'm guessing the current plan is to pound Ukrainian lines with artillery, and occupy the abandoned/destroyed ukrainian positions and then repeat. This just goes to show how slow a modern war can be, even on historically offensive friendly terrain, when both sides have a will to fight. Best Russia can do is to probe Ukrainian lines little by little until either side breaks. Artillery is king of this war.
subhuman CIA education
> Why is the Russian army incapable of large scale offensives?
warontherocks.com
Ive paid almost no attention to this bullshit, however my gut feeling was that
>Russia simply wants areas that it can annex without too much dissent, i.e. ethically russian area
>This means only areas on the eastern border
>This will mimic what happened in Crimea
And gee, my gut is smarter than you faggots with 9000 hours of research are. Dont even need to validate if my hypothesis is right, I already simply know its 90+% correct as is
>water for crimea secured
>buffer region for crimea secured
How is Russia losing again? When I was a kid everyone was saying they would never, ever control Sevastopol again.
Yet here we are.
Putin wants to have high K/D and refuses to use human waves tactic.
Not exactly a problem since he's not in a rush.
At some point Ukraine will bleed out of men, equipment and money.
The better question is how did Americans managed to lose to Taliban despite 60 year log technology gap.
>trust the plan
>two more weeks
>6-dimensional chess
>mongoslavs will save the white race from the jewkrainians
I wish vatnik would just win this war already so reddit and twitter can be on suicide watch and we can stop talking about it here. But unfortunately, vatnik is a fucking incompetent moron.
Lol you Europeans are so fucking ignorant of war.
You are ignorant of slav wars
Good article but irrelevant in this case, because only a limited number of their troops are deployed, and geographical distances are short.
People like to say ''logistics'' but realistically Russians have no issues with logistics. They're firing more shells daily than Red Army did in 1941 (consider the disparity in size).
don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs boy
Good question user. It is a solid intel based argument and something I am sure is being bandied about quite abit behind closed doors.
My analysis is as follows.
Russia has achieved all of its initial strategic objectives. They have secured their ethnic population in Ukraine, gained space to protect Crimea and provide it with water, gained enormously valuable combat experience and opposition intelligence for their entire military, galvanized China into a more aggressive approach over Taiwan, politically fractured European solidarity and effectively seized control of their energy grids, and collected enough POW's etc for unlimited domestic propagnda production.
>Next steps: meter down natural gas knowing that NATO infrastructure can be turned off at a moment's notice if #5 is invoked. Promote civil unrest in NATO countries by pointing out how corrupt and idiotic our "leaders" are (ex: Finnish PM video). Force a culminating political crisis at the beginning of winter when a counter-attack through Belarus is impossible without a functioning backend energy infrastructure to keep eveerything moving. Use this crisis to seize the Baltics and capture Western Ukraine. This provides them with an almost impregnable defensive position going into the spring, an enemy with starving/freezing people incapable of raising an army on short notice, and a chokehold on all western approaches to Russia. Cumulatively, this would represent a stunning victory and geo-political shift in their favour if successful. The only way to defeat this strategy is to immediately transition to a full war economy and use th rest of the warm weather to fully organize each country's workforce into a planned wartime economy. Which Putin knows won't happen because partying is a lot more fun than explaining to citizens why they need to shower from buckets and do push ups in the park.
>The better question is how did Americans managed to lose to Taliban despite 60 year log technology gap.
For the same reason why Russia is still "fighting" Ukrainians. The US props up enemies to prolong what otherwise wouldnt even be a real fight or a possibility.
Why? Cause muh shekels, thats why
What a shit meme, us mutts don't need Russian oil or gas.
You stupid fucks can’t interpret Russia’s strategy when it’s clear as day.
>multiprong attack to confuse real objective
>yet there is one region that they gained control of immediately, and have only reinforced with buffers
Care to guess what region that is? It’s in OP’s map, and it’s not some useless village of Muslims.
Decades of American propaganda has rotted your brains. You simply don’t understand the purpose of propaganda during war.
not being able to conclude your campaign is a disaster
But it's not very clear, namely the question is whether it was an operation aimed at causing the quick collapse of Ukrainian resistance by virtue of moving fast and going in deep, or it was indeed all a ruse, in the sense that northern operations and those around Kharkov were simply feints to confuse Ukrainians and prevent them from reinforcing Donbas and south immediately.
We simply don't know. Western intelligence is either propaganda or just awful (or we aren't even getting it), because they don't seem to know shit about Russian chain of command or shitload of other things.
But all your european allies do
>kiev was just a feint
if it was, it was a very costly one, both in terms of material and morale. Hence, arguably, it is questionable as a strategy, if it ever was one.
Russia is literally fighting with two hands tied behind its back. They could utterly BTFO the Ukrainians with countervalue attacks (attacks on civilian and industrial targets) to the point of unconditional surrender much like how the US got Japan to surrender, but they dont because of global optics.
To make things worse, people keep funding and arming Ukrainians to fight an otherwise decided war. At this point, everything is just a means to dump old tech, buy replacements, and to give Russians/Ukrainian some veterans and combat exp.
They are capable.
Why over extend yourself when you don't have to?
They're drawing the Ukrops out.
The campaign is already concluded. They don’t care if they have to conduct Syria 2.0 in Ukraine.
The sole goal was to secure crimea to secure their Black Sea port.
It’s exceptionally clear for anyone who isn’t below the age of 22.
For decades, the most concerning national security issue for Russia has been their deteriorating relationship with Turkey. Without having the ability to project force into the Black Sea, Turkey represents a large security threat.
What has Russia done in the past 15 years?
>attempt to counter Turkish interest in Central America
>secure Crimea
>continue to secure Crimea
It’s obvious to anyone with a semblance of a brain.
Imagine posting this an American. The US outproduces Russia in terms of oil and is just behind on wheat exports despite having less land and double the population to feed. Stop being so demoralized.
Russia is the most useless fucking military superpower in history, they can't even help Syria to free itself from foreign invaders
Retard!
Why do you conveniently leave out the Lapland and Continuation wars?
According to who, the pentagon?
>it was a very costly one
Your evidence for that is...what exactly? Twitter posts and sensationalist reporting by notoriously biased sources?
There was only one good and proper study of Russian casualties in this conflict, and it relied on social media and obituaries and stuff like that. Going from that, Russians suffered 5-6000 dead in this war. Just Russians, in the sense of Russian Armed Forces, not separatists.
Those aren't huge loses. Ukrainian losses are far far more dreadful.
They should have replicated the Soviet toppling of Dubcek.
In that operation they sent armed guys in civilian clothing on regular airline flights as the first wave.
>Central America
Central Asia**
>timestamp
youtu.be
Not even Pentagon, or the British. British MoD silently dropped their shit and the count is on 12-15 thousand KIA for months now (that's both Russia and separatists). Which is a realistic number, and spread over 6 months it's hardly catastrophic, though most of those casualties were suffered initially when they were still waging mobile warfare.
It was actually cheaper for New England states to buy from Russia because New York wouldn't allow pipelines through.
I’m not watching your shitty YouTube video. Either explain in your own words or gtfo, you ignorant little shit.
It takes a big loss to rise from glory
>America on left
We're a net exporter lmao
I was more disputing what constitutes “costly” to the Russian leadership.
Losing men and old weaponry isn’t costly, it’s efficiency. At least in the minds of imperialist martial leadership, which I think we can all agree describes Russia.
>outproduces in oil
Only when you count shale which isn’t actually profitable. Doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not like you can build a pipeline across the Atlantic
>shale isn’t profitable
how does it feel being permanently stuck in 2012?