Everyone keeps talking about how Russia has failed in invading Ukraine, my question is: given the current support that Ukraine has, how much better would America fare?
Everyone keeps talking about how Russia has failed in invading Ukraine, my question is: given the current support that Ukraine has, how much better wo...
>how much better would America fare?
well air dominance wouldn't be a question, that's for sure
>well air dominance wouldn't be a question, that's for sure
If that's so then why isn't the almighty USAF imposing a no fly zone over Ukraine?
Don't tell me the US air dominance is only out of the question when the US is bombing countries without air defences.
>defences
Ok sebra
>If that's so then why isn't the almighty USAF imposing a no fly zone over Ukraine?
>Don't tell me the US air dominance is only out of the question when the US is bombing countries without air defences.
Hey Ivan, they've stated time and time again that the reality is we'd have to shoot your pilots down. This is because you're drunk morons that would still try shit. That would risk escalating things. We'd have to commit to occupying Russian cities and having Yekaterinburg trials or something. Way too much effort. As is, you have to launch missiles from your own airspace. So what's to be gained?
>country doesn't escalate
>"Why are they not of escalate so we...I mean they can of press NOOK?"
The frick kinda schizo shit is this?
>why isn't the almighty USAF imposing a no fly zone over Ukraine?
Because that would mean a war with Russia. A 'No FlY zOnE!!!!' is not some magic spell that forces all of Russia's planes to stop working the moment POTUS signs the order. It's just a threat - "we will shoot down any military aircraft in this area" - the moment Russia calls it the NATO aircraft enforcing that no fly zone either have to back down (which is incredibly humiliating and damaging internationally) or shoot down the Russian aircraft, which would lead to something like vid related pretty quickly.
then why doesn't russia call it, homosexual?
fricking do it!
The taunt button doesn't actually do anything
This
Blowing up random sandBlack folk is a might easier than fighting a peer opponent
The Burgers don’t want any more of those down pilot vids from the first Gulf War
>iraq didnt have tanks
>iraq didnt have an airforce
>iraq didnt have artillery, MLRS, short range ballistic missiles, semi modern airdefense systems
at the start of the war iraq was more neer peer to the US than Ukraine was to Russia given we had to give them artillery and launcher systems to have a fighting chance
>peer opponent
Russia by invading Ukraine showed World that U.S have no peer opponents because U.S is standing above everyfrickingone
>no fly zone over Ukraine
>literal act of war
why on earth would we waste our time and resources fighting Russia head on when we can pour money into Ukraine to let them do it instead
we literally just got put of the war on terror, we don't care about russians
some z-tard spent who knows how many hours in photoshop to make that image, to then post it to reddit, to then screenshot his own post, and post it to his shitcord sever with the caption "LOOK AT THIS REDDIT MOMENT!"
same with that Zelensky 1917 image
>the actual question
probably would've captured Kiew and collapsed the government, but would probably have issues with insurgents and would suck at nation building whatever the frick they replaced it with
How much better would the most powerful armed forces in the world fare? With the largest and most well equipped navy and airforce, with the most incredible logistics in world history?
Correct and correct.
This image is old as frick and very funny tbh
Very organic, mucho obligado.
moron this image is pretty old and probably from 2014 time
Frick off vatBlack person false flagger shill. This is a well known image
Imagine that but with 'jump belt' equipped air mobile infantry, supported by stealth drones
tpbp
>sanctioned for more than a decade
>no regard for civilians
>giant coalition force
yeah
>no regard for civilians
meanwhile in fantasy land
>Posting American casualties as civilian casualties
Here's the actual figures:
https://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf
you guys are so high on this football match you can't even tell when someone's agreeing with you
the terminology is very clear: total civilian monthly deaths from violence. not american casualties, not american civilians, i dunno why you thought that was even being discussed.
anyway that's the absolute total estimate of civilian casualties due to the war you could possibly achieve. i also used the most generous one, the iraqi's own database. that means it includes deaths from tribal conflicts argued to result from the invasion.
the point this chart is making is that, contrary to the post it's replying to, the russians are still outkilling that number
fricking mouthbreathers
>larger and more densely populated country
>more civilian deaths
americuck education is truly amazing
>iraqi cities were less densely populated than ukranian cities
iraq pop density was 139sq/m, as compared to ukraine's 187. consider the geography of the two nations and come to the same conclusion as everyone else:
you are terrifyingly moronic.
adding to the complications that made one of the most precise nations on the planet still rofl all over the civilian population: the average iraqi family is like 53.2 people. and they live in two rooms and a forest terrace. 5 million people lived in baghdad when the cruise missiles starting dropping. look up how many live in kiev.
im a phoneposting on the shitter so not only did i post too soon, this moronic formatting isnt getting better
people still thought what america did was the work of satan and there was whining about it to no end. you probably weren't alive at the time but the media was APOCALYPTIC about the human consequences of the invasion.
>cuck cope
lmao
not really
he's right
you're population density argument was moronic and a cope
>cuck cope
lmao
russia must really be pushing ukrainian shit in today
>no argument
>assumes that population density is evenly distributed over an area
He's right, you are moronic and it was cope.
>Civilian deaths due to 'violence'
That's not civilian deaths due to the American military, you absolute fricking liar.
>sanctioned for more than a decade
True. Russia has not the economic power for that.
>no regard for civilians
Blatantly untrue.
>giant coalition force
The US made up more than 90% of the attacking force and the rest was mostly Brits. Still, it's quite telling everyone wants to help the US while not even Belarus, a Russian satellite state, would help them with a war right across the border.
4th most powerful military in the world
Civilian casualties were minimal
US accounted for the overwhelming majority of forces
Substantially stronger
That was in the 90s though? Is America still as strong as that now?
It was achieved via coalition force, that's usually how America fights wars. No coalition, no war. But to answer your question, I'd be inclined to say yes.
>It was achieved via coalition force
No it wasn't. America could have done all that alone.
Hell, during the Iraq war America still had spare logistics to aid France in their African shenanigans just for fun. America has no need of its allies, we just like em.
"Could have" being the operative word in your claim.
The US is MUCH stronger than that now.
Oh, really? Why are you afraid of Russia then?
The US is not afraid of Russia.
Biden was willing to appease Russia if Zelensky ran away from Ukraine.
Well, you don't represent the US government.
Ah so you’re moronic ok.
We wish a homie would with that Alaska threat. A small part of me hopes one of those secret black book projects is some kind of liberty prime nonsense just to dab on them because if you’re actually invading US soil, and a large source of OIL, you bet your ass the gov is going to pull the stops out.
We arent lol. We were worried before, but now that we got to see your utter incompetence? Fricks like you probably don't even have working nukes.
It's good for funding.
>t. locksneedfartin shareholders
PGM’s were brand new in terms of large scale use in that conflict and battlefield comms and coordination in the air was actually almost Vietnam War tier. The US is *far* more proficient at those things now.
It’s a historic achievement what America (who provided close to 80% of combat forces + C2) did in the Gulf War in logistics alone.
>That was in the 90s though? Is America still as strong as that now?
Gungho Trump was stopped by his generals whan he wanted to retaliate against Iran, a country that has the fraction of Russia's military power.
What do you think?
Trump actually had Souleimani iced which none of you spastics seem to remember - that guy was basically the architect of russian intervention in Syria and a key figure in the region
Trump killed Iran’s top general. He was not “held back.” Iran is a non threat
The USA was able to evacuate/airlift nearly 130k people out of Afghanistan in just a few days with a moments notice. Their logistical capabilities are literally unparalleled.
Kiev regime changed in two days. Country pacified in a week or two.
Then long slog of hearts and minds and handling guerrillas.
Nice trick question, America only deals with communist scum
It should kill itself then.
It would be the Gulf War all over again. Our missiles and bombs would actually be accurate in hitting their targets.
We'd manage to force Zelensky to flee and get a new guy installed while taking minimal losses, but at the cost of torpedoing Europe/America cooperation for a century and making half of America extremely pissed off.
I dunno. Ukraine actually fighting competently is a fricking real mystery. 2014 Crimea and 8 years of embarrassing failures fighting the LGM there in the Dombas.
My only thought is BOTH SIDES are very incompetent or the fighting isn't really as intense as the media says, which uhhh, seems pretty intense but idk.
>My only thought is BOTH SIDES are very incompetent or the fighting isn't really as intense as the media says, which uhhh, seems pretty intense but idk.
Ukraine doesn't have enough manpower and weapons. Russia isn't as incompetent as the West make them out to be, but it's still very far from NATO's standards. They're still capable of small maneuvers and so on.
This, despite some slip-ups Russia's forces still managed to eke it out and unfrick themselves.
Is this the new vatnig line?
"ACTKUSALLY RUSSIA IS DOING IS FINE NOW IGNORE THE EXPLODING AMMO DEPOT"
Kek
I empathize with losers because I am one.
Russian maneuver tactics are impressive so far, anon. Be objective.
It sure is impressive manouvering to be stuck in walking distance of your own border
Their maneuvering forces disintegrated as soon as they met dismounted resistance armed with old AT weapons. Whatever objective credit the Russian military deserves in this war, it isn't for that.
The only thing impressive about Russian maneuver tactics is how quickly they ran away from Kyiv. Every 'success' they've had so far is through grinding artillery attrition warfare.
*has punji stakes shoved up his ass by Vietcong*
>CoNfEdeRaTeS
*gets beheaded by Iraqis on an internet livestream*
>aRe
*flees Bagram air base without even telling the Afghan commander they're that afraid of the ANA turning on them*
LoSeRs!
Anyone who loses to rice and goat farmers three fricking times in the span of 50 years has absolutely no right to gloat about cotton farmers who they nearly lost 150 years earlier being losers
I see you're still buttmad. You can sit in the loser corner with the vatBlack person.
Dixietards have been fighting Uncle Sam's forever wars ever since they lost
Says the moron who couldn’t even properly play in the sandbox and collapsed into the sad state they are in now.
oh man I like the confederacy this war is garbage america is garbage i'm with putin now. please present russian rape penis that only works on young recruits
Rushits so moronic they lost twice. LMFAO
>but it's still very far from NATO's standards.
Define 'nato standards'...
Nato has NEVER faced any foe....aside from the Turks and the Americans, all NATO armies are a joke, french, british, german, italian...they pretty much disbanded their armies in the last few decades.
>2014 Crimea and 8 years of embarrassing failures fighting the LGM there in the Dombas.
Read moar. Ukraine had pretty much defeated the Separatists in the summer of 2014 when Putin decided to intervene with the regular Russian army.
Lol no. The same Ukrainian military that was instantly defeated in Crimea? The one that either surrendered without leaving their barracks or straight up defected and joined the Russians?
Nah Ukraine sucked right up until about the 3rd day of the invasion. Azov and the Donbabweans in that 8 year long war were the only OG killers. They're both all dead now its just amateur hour with better equipment.
>instantly defeated in Crimea?
anon at least read something about this war, don't be a dumb homosexual
crimea happened bc nobody literally expected russia to backstab ukraine like that, people were confused bc fricking MAIDAN was happening during crimea annexation, meaning no functioning government to issue fricking orders.
also you know ukies were not ready to shoot their neighbor immediately on sight, unlike russians
It isn't a mystery, the US and Europe have trained Ukraine since 2014. And every western intel agency, and department of defense is feeding Ukraine intel and tactical, every moment of every day. Urkiane vs the US would mean none of that, so Ukraine would be Iraq 2.0 the good parts and probably the bad as well.
You expect some level of competency when you are trained and supplied by US and Europe, not like what happened to the ANA when they didn't even care for their country anymore
>how much better would America fare?
>the navy alone has more planes than the entire soviet arsenal
>tighter SEAD, DEAD, AWACS net to defeat ground-based AA
>much higher amount of stealth aircraft and PGMs to ensure enemy C2 is in shambles
>each individual ABCT three times the size of a BCT
>proportion of trucks and engineering vehicles per person far larger than any other on the planet
>closer integration of drones and recon with infantry and armor
>actually uses their doctrine instead of simply rushing forward
>an actual navy means simply mining the water ways is not adequate deterrent, forces must always be split to cover landing sights and to dissuade carrier-borne operations
>access to GPS, far superior to GLONASS
the difference would be immense and obvious from day one
if Ukraine was still as motivated to fight the front would be further north and west but every major city would still have been a horrifying meatgrinder. the question is would they be as motivated, though, because the opening missile barrage would have been way bigger, way longer, and actually would have hit the intended targets.
if they somehow managed to maintain the tenacity they’ve shown, every city would still be a nearly unwinnable meat grinder and the losses would make the last 20 years of the sandbox seem like child’s play. They’d likely exceed US losses in Vietnam by quite a bit. still an order of magnitude lower than what Russia is experiencing though.
This is also predicated by that fact that America would also pursue a softer engagement like what Russia has claimed rather than going full scorched earth.
The most apt comparison would be the Desert Storm offensive. Read up on that.
Let's just say that I would immediately pop a stiffy that would last the entire duration of the war.
And it wouldn't even last long enough to justify calling a doctor.
Ukraine spent the past eight years min maxing on how to beat Russia. They figured the key to beating Russia are three things.
1. Enough Anti Air to at least suppress Russia’s sorties.
2. Anti Tank, all the anti tank they can get. This includes drone assisted artillery.
3. Defense in depth.
Would nato be able to get past the Anti Air umbrella? Probably, they’ve spent an awful lot of money planning against it since it’s basically the same umbrella Russia uses.
I think the nastiest surprise for anyone going into the war would be the drone assisted artillery, not just for armor but also infantry and anything else on the ground.
Not many people took note of how effectively it could be used until this war.
As for defense in depth, iirc the campaign in desert storm didn’t see much defense in depth because the whole region is a flat naked desert, so we don’t know how much Ukrainian’s specific terrain would effect a nato force.
Also a lot the Ukrainians effectiveness comes from supporting Intel that they wouldn’t get in this hypothetical anyways.
But I mean you’re a just loser who spends his time obsessing over photoshops of the country you’re invading as a super hero.
Addicted to whataboutism so hard you have to create whatabout hypothetical of your literal adversary as invading what you are failing to invade because you’re so mind broken.
So yeah I think they’d fare a little better.
>I think the nastiest surprise for anyone going into the war would be the drone assisted artillery, not just for armor but also infantry and anything else on the ground.
>Not many people took note of how effectively it could be used until this war.
The US issues drones down to squad level don't they? Are you saying that the US would be surprised by the use of drones? Seems highly unlikely, the last 5 years I've covered at least 12 systems which are steered at infantry controlled drones.
Dude, the Russians aren't even spamming the board anymore. They are winning and they might even win the economic war and after that the world war. Welcome to the Planet of Apes
I know you're baiting but some people really do think Russia is economically stable.
>watching ron paul youtube
>he starts talking about how russia's economy is fine
>turn it off
>how would america fare attacking a country it is supporting at the same time
The IS has been manufacturing wars for decades doing just what you described, lol.
I am Ukrainian. And let me tell you how USA invasion of Ukraine would go:
Ukrainians welcome american army while waving america flags and chanting "USA, USA, USA". All Ukrainian vatniks that try to resist USA get hanged by Ukrainians. USA gets control of all ukraine in 1 hour 30 minutes(they actually took control in 1 hour, but victory speech took 30 minutes)
If I come for a visit, can I take home a souvenir 19yo hot blonde with big hooters? Asking for, umm, well, me akshually.
We would walk into Ukraine and be like “hey everyone, we’re here to talk about our religion, Black person-homosexual satanism!”
And they would welcome you with open arms.
I’m not meming or being ironic, stop spending so much time online, take your meds, and have sex.
Many such cases.
>how much better would America fare?
Ukraine is fully controlled within 4-5 weeks with no more than 1000 lost on US side.
Modern America has zero experience fighting a force like Ukraine that is backed by the same level of supply and loaned intel.
You mean the intel and material America is supplying?
Lmao.
>given the current support that Ukraine has, how much better would America fare?
The US have the entire country by this point and working on pacifying resistance.
>offer them to join NATO
>they accept
>instant victory
>cringe reddit tier image posted by /chug/ so that they can screencap it later
You guys need to at least call out bait more
Yeah Russia just secured some much needed farm land and water access.
Ukraine is going to become the landlocked capital for gay slavs international. Nothing will be left but Zelensky in a Hilton with a bunch of Javelins and then every house will just be a prostitutes' den or cam girl scam.
I bet not a single one of you has been to Russia or Ukraine? Well Ukraine is a SHIT HOLE, most of Russia is not that nice but at least if you have money they have a service.
I hated traveling through Ukraine in 2017 my main thought was "I found the Eurotrash center of the world... and I thought that was Sochi. heh
Yeah, the only thing worse than being Russia is being a Russian puppet, no wonder they would sacrifice their lives without regard to buy their freedom.
No country ever in all of history has ever been improved by its relationship with Russia.
Only thing worse than being Russian is being Russia's moronic cousins which is exactly what Ukraine is.
Anon, the United States was able to travel thousands of miles away to the other side of the globe, curbstomp a military they trained and supplied, the second largest military on planet earth.
And we eliminated almost all of their combat capability in a single day.
And you are asking how America would fair invading a country that borders them? You can walk from Kiev to Moscow. Russia is a joke of a nation.
invasion would be over in 2 weeks
the occupation would never finish because the US sucks at getting any nation to be self reliant, so it would be 20 years later "wow lost to a bunch of drunk farmers"
The initial push would always be successful because an amazing command and control system and how a lot of doctrine in the US military is mobility warfare. We can never occupy any country successfully though because the overemphasis of precision weaponry and state-of-the-art technology has left little for combat units to think of anything outside of combat. It would be a disaster similar to the Russian one, just delayed. Could you imagine a joint force of intelligence, highly specialized units, billions of dollars in equipment, and the latest weapons being used in missions to destroy Ukie equipment only to accidentally blow up someone's babushka instead? Because that's exactly what would happen. We really are built to just sprint into a room, bully the frick out of everyone, get tired and then just fall asleep in front of everybody.
>We really are built to just sprint into a room, bully the frick out of everyone, get tired and then just fall asleep in front of everybody.
Not quite, the US military serves a number of purposes (outside of letting politicians pay their campaign donors). The threat of a giant, ridiculously well funded, army that can kick in the door and change a regime without much hope of the enemy government resisting for more than a few days is a huge bargaining chip in negotiations with less than friendly foreign governments. They've spent the last 20 years trying to get better at what comes after unseating the old government/dictator but it doesn't really work. Nobody has really figured out Counterinsurgency yet, Britain got pretty good at it towards the end of their empire - but they still couldn't figure out a way to win a counterinsurgency campaign.
can you imagine ukraine trying to do its HIMARS strikes on US ammo storage? not only would CIWS (probably) intercept the rockets, but the launchers would be deleted by predator drones - perhaps before launch.
they wouldn't have himars if nato countries (you know, the US and their allies) weren't sending them equipment so that entire point is pretty asinine
>mutt logic
you americucks really have shitty schooling don't you?
you're looking for an excuse to get angry. let me rephrase: can you imagine ukraine trying to do strikes on US ammo storage using mobile rocket launchers of that size?
p.s., i'm english and yes our schooling is shite
no one gets mad on PrepHole my underage fren
and no I can't because ukraine wouldn't have them without the US and nato, they would be driving up in old hondas with AKs as a "strike" without all the support
I know fantasy is your thing in tolkien gnome land but be objective and realistic or you just seem fricking moronic
Grad is similarly sized.
US can actually do logistics including air-resupply.
Plus persistent CAS and suppression of enemy air defenses. US troops are better trained with higher morale, which is significant. US would win faster, but it still would not be easy.
Think 2003 Iraq, but a lot bloodier.
>It would not be easy
>2003 Iraq
>Destroy an entire country 7,000 miles away in 40 days suffering 200 KIA and 500 wounded
>Not easy
Black person wut?
>Kill 200 times more civilians than russia did
>Had 2x numerical superiority while russia is fighting at 1 to 7 numerical disadvantage
>russian forces numbers are massively inflated by corruption and their military is much smaller and worse than they said it was
yes?
>be a wildly more competent and powerful force
>win war with absolute victory due to logistics and combat capability no other military in all of human history has ever matched
yes, it's called being superior. That's what we're saying about you. You are inferior.
>muh shock and awe
>still sit in FOBs getting blown up for 2 decades
>lose billions in money and equipment for nothing
>run away
>based we did it lads!
which pic is you?
funny you should post how russians try to get out of conscription
so definitely top left?
Svetlana is getting fricked by gruzies right now on her vacation to Batumi
I don't know who that is or where that shithole is because I'm not a slavic troony b***hmade homosexual lmao
The US has an air force so it would be essentially the same as the Iraqis vs the US. In other words complete steamrolling. This war is actually really weird in that it's not modern at all due to the lack of air combat on both sides.
USA is a superpower economically and militarily self sufficient in food and energy, Russia is a shithole with an economy the size of Spain run by a formerly communist dictator and his cronies. Russia is not a rival to the USA, it is not a rival to the EU it is not a rival to NATO and it is not a rival to the G7 economically, culturally, diplomatically, militarily it is not an economic rival to place like Germany or the UK either, it might me an economic rival to Spain or Italy but they are in the EU and NATO so not really that either. Stop trying to compare Russia with the USA or EU. Its a shithole full of tards in a USSR cargo cult as moronic as any abandoned grass shirt Black folk in Polynesia dancing a round a plane shaped object built of seashells. 1/5th of them don;t have pluming or toilets and Russians think their big problem is how to militarily rival the USA. Hummm. Reality and the Russian propaganda machine are different dimensions
Number one rule of propaganda: don't make the other guy look cooler than you do. Fricking vatniks.
You really think there are more Russian shills here than Ukranian shills?
America would fare 100 times better than Ukraine, the whole thing wouldn't last even into march, I doubt russians could even touch american soil
Ukraine? If nukes weren't an issue America would take Moscow in a week.
nukes are looking more and more like they ARENT an issue.
russia can barely maintain anything.
it can't even maintain the plane meant to carry putin in the event of a nuclear war.
Maybe if Midget Medvedev and the other oligarch alcoholics keep threatening Alaska we'll get to see how long Vladivostok can hold out 🙂
America is incapable of fighting a war like this considering it lost to literal shepherds. Twice.
Personally I'm a big proponent of constant escalation.
Decades upon decades of no war has proven that nobody has the spine to actually press the big red button. That's because nobody ever will. So what you should do is bully the ever loving shit out of every nation that has an inferior military. Invade them. Bomb them. Conquer them. Annex them. Roll the dominos over one nation after another until the whole world is yours.
Then quit and do something else since the fun part is already done and peacetime sucks.
I didn't want to make a thread for this, so I guess I'll ask here. Is there any validity to this guy's claim?
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/52353495/#52355692
The claim is that the rates of civilian killings in the first 2 months of the iraq war by america was similar to the rate of civilian killings that russians inflicted on Ukraine.
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/52353495/#52356458
Here he also claims that "about 1/3rd of ordinance used in Iraq were unguided.", although in his subsequent reply https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/52353495/#52357279 he stated that he couldn't find the source again.