Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meh.....they sent in a bunch of teenagers and early 20s somethings (kids) conscripts with crappy supplies and weapons to serves as fresh meat to be turned into ground beef. They were used to soften up the Ukraine. Russia's advanced weaponry and elite divisions till haven't really been deployed yet. People shouldn't get confident at all that Russia has been 'struggling'. They are just getting warmed up, so I wouldn't extract a whole lot from the first week of combat.

So they sent in their 3rd string bench warmers just to confused the US military and intelligence officers?

Makes a lot of sense.

Russia does not wants to limit the loss of their most advanced equipment and heavy armor. Force the Ukrainians to use up all of their anti-tank weapons, stingers, etc. on junk equipment operated by a bunch of kids forced to enlist. Ukraine will be out of ammo soon. Molotov cocktails don't work against fearsome T90s. And who knows if they start field the T14. It's a beast.

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain why we are seeing Russian death counts (and other losses) but not Ukraine? Is it simply b/c Ukraine is putting out the numbers but Russia is not or is it a military advantage thing...Let the Russians know their losses but not the invaded's losses?

I know we are seeing towns go under Russian control and I assume there's a civilian and military death count there but would it be too depressing for those still in Ukraine?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Russian generals getting killed?

Because their non-commissioned officers and conscripts are not doing what they want.

Real battle leaders have to lead from the front; no one else is doing it so the Generals are doing it.
Problem for Russia is that when you are at the front you are exposed to enemy fire.

Russia has some very capable officers; but like any military they rely on their command chain to execute their orders. When that does not work senior officers are exposed to combat as the try to execute their orders.

This makes no sense. Generals do not lead from the front. It does not seem you have an understanding of how an army works.

Clearly you cannot read. Battle leaders are normally NCOs and junior officers. They are not doing their job so senior officers are trying take more direct field command and are at the front. Hence they are getting killed.

Mattis lead from the front in both invasions. It happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are giving the Ukrainians an unknown number of Switchblades:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/ukraine-asks-biden-admin-armed-drones-jamming-gear-surface-air-missile-rcna20197

Yes - these are the game changer.

Putin is done.

They’re only sending 100 drones.

Anonymous wrote:We are giving the Ukrainians an unknown number of Switchblades:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/ukraine-asks-biden-admin-armed-drones-jamming-gear-surface-air-missile-rcna20197

Yes - these are the game changer.

Putin is done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see any evidence to support this possible scenario, but I'm curious what others think: is there a chance that Putin actually wants to draw NATO into Ukraine in order to ignite a broader conflict? Perhaps, so far, he has been fighting with one arm behind his back, and he will only swing with both fists once NATO forces enter Ukraine. Additionally, with NATO deployed in Ukraine, is there a risk that China would then enter the conflict, fighting alongside of Russia?

The only thing China will be entering is Siberia- just as soon as it looks like the balance of power has tipped away from Putin.

China already basically owns Siberia and will not need to invade. Russia is a paria, a country that has been declining for a while with an economy based on selling energy now on the brink of ruin. Russia will just become a satellite of China, which will get everything it needs without having to military invade or occupy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see any evidence to support this possible scenario, but I'm curious what others think: is there a chance that Putin actually wants to draw NATO into Ukraine in order to ignite a broader conflict? Perhaps, so far, he has been fighting with one arm behind his back, and he will only swing with both fists once NATO forces enter Ukraine. Additionally, with NATO deployed in Ukraine, is there a risk that China would then enter the conflict, fighting alongside of Russia?

The only thing China will be entering is Siberia- just as soon as it looks like the balance of power has tipped away from Putin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Russian generals getting killed?

Because their non-commissioned officers and conscripts are not doing what they want.

Real battle leaders have to lead from the front; no one else is doing it so the Generals are doing it.
Problem for Russia is that when you are at the front you are exposed to enemy fire.

Russia has some very capable officers; but like any military they rely on their command chain to execute their orders. When that does not work senior officers are exposed to combat as the try to execute their orders.

This makes no sense. Generals do not lead from the front. It does not seem you have an understanding of how an army works.

Clearly you cannot read. Battle leaders are normally NCOs and junior officers. They are not doing their job so senior officers are trying take more direct field command and are at the front. Hence they are getting killed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see any evidence to support this possible scenario, but I'm curious what others think: is there a chance that Putin actually wants to draw NATO into Ukraine in order to ignite a broader conflict? Perhaps, so far, he has been fighting with one arm behind his back, and he will only swing with both fists once NATO forces enter Ukraine. Additionally, with NATO deployed in Ukraine, is there a risk that China would then enter the conflict, fighting alongside of Russia?

Putin absolutely wants to draw NATO in so he can strengthen his domestic position within Russia. The "woe is us, NATO is so mean to Russia" narrative plays very well domestically but he really can't deploy that narrative effectively when Russia is just shelling civilians in the Ukraine.

China absolutely will NOT put boots on the ground to fight alongside Russians. Their best case scenario is to sit back and watch Russia and the Western democracies destroy each other.

I think your logic makes sense. If Putin draws NATO into the war, it will galvanize the Russian population, and perhaps, he hopes, mask the fact that the Russians are indeed the bad guys in this conflict.

Conversely, if NATO remains on the sidelines, then, ultimately, there is a possibility that an ever-larger percentage of the Russian population will break free from the propaganda and develop an understanding of the horrible truth. And that would potentially lead to the downfall of Putin.

The only way a stable outcome can be achieved, I think, is if Putin is removed from power and a benign regime takes over. If Putin remains in power, any post-war "peace" will be quite tense -- perhaps similar to the tension that exists on the Korean peninsula, with two diametrically opposed societies on opposite sides of a lengthy, highly militarized border.