Is this really a viable military strategy long-term? Even the most pro-Russian sources essentially admit this is the gameplan and seem even proud of it but I question the military wisdom of the strategy
Is this really a viable military strategy long-term?
This is how russia had fought all wars before so yes.
Russia had already pushed back the Germans thousands of kilometers by this point in the Eastern Front. Meanwhile in Ukraine they've advanced a few dozen km here and there and have lost more territory than they've taken.
don't forget they had help from the americans by this point
And it was only possible through the logistical help of the lend-lease act and caused such damage onto their population that the aftermath still haunts Russian demographics to this day.
Jesus fricking christ did they even make ANYTHING themselves
Imagine how fricked the ussr would be without lend-lease. Could the red army even beat Germany if it was fighting at 95% strength?
Tsmt they fight for noble causes like trans rights
Probably by the late 40's they had a lot more room to retreat and reform. No possibility of a coup on Stalin.
The walls of Constantinople were completely impregnable up until the precise moment at which Turkish cannons made them obsolete. The point is not that there is some commensurately large technological advancement, but just that what has worked in the past is not guaranteed to work in the future just because it once worked. There are many reasons to believe that human wave tactics may no longer be as effective for Russia as they were in the past.
It wasn't even effective in the past. Russia got shitcanned multiple fricking times doing exactly this bullshit in the past.
The Turks only just succeeded in taking the city, and the city was a shell of its former self with the defenders massively outnumbered.
The cannons certainly helped, but the city was still very strong
Also don't forget it was hired Hungarian gunsmith that made those canons.
4th crusade you idiot
Modern Russia isn't built to do that anymore and there's a reason for that. It just doesn't have the manpower advantage it needs to be completely moronic. Unfortunately for them, the non moronic forces are all but spent or reserved for the literal downfall of the state.
I love Zapp.
I don't even mind that the actor started voice copying Trump word for word during the pandemic to take the piss because in the end, he was talking like Zapp. And it worked.
I love billy west.
Ukraine doesn’t have resources to fight the war of attrition. Germany never had resources for that either.
The longer the war lasts the more fricked the Ukraine will get.
Americans don’t care about Ukrainian lives cause it’s all about weakening Russia using Ukrainians as some sort of kamikaze country that kills itself to achieve the goals the pentagon has.
The Washington would sacrifice every single country in europe if needed. The European population is 100% expendable
Hundreds of years of winning wars though attrition has also made Russian incapable of fighting wars of attrition though. Wiping out yet another generation of men (and making millions more flee the country) isn't going to help the already horrendous demographics. They are just banking on Ukraine being equally unable to tank the losses.
>Russia
>Hundreds of years of winning wars
[citation needed]
True, they lost ww1 and Crimean war. But technically they won the Winter war, that war with the Turks, 2nd Checehn war and definitely won WW2, despite horrendous casualties.
And lost to Japan, and lost to Poland after WWI, and lost in the Baltics, and lost in the Finnish Civil War, and Afghanistan. If it "won" the Winter War it lost the Continuation War for sure.
Ukraine IS unable to tank the losses.
Also Russia fighting a proxy war with someone is a normal state of things. This is just how geopolitics work, if Russia is allowed to stay at peace due to vast resources it builds up the economy rather quick and starts to contest France/Britain/US/whoever else around the globe.
Russia is always in a position that they can just sit idle and have everything. Countries like the UK have to be proactive however otherwise they risk losing everything.
The US is kind of a mixed bag a lot of its success can be attributed to other powers destroying eachother repeatedly in wars so for the US any conflict in europe or asia is a good thing.
>if Russia is allowed to stay at peace due to vast resources it builds up the economy rather quick and starts to contest France/Britain/US/
Obviously that not true as seen by the last 30 years
the delusions on these vatniks are unreal
>banking on Ukraine being equally unable to tank the losses
That's a pretty good bet though, when you think about it.
>fight with a 1/2 k/d even when you have tanks and artillery
>run out of the good shit whilst the enemy is basically playing with cheats enabled and unlimited resupply
>your k/d suddenly becomes 1/10 or worse
I can see why Russia is in the proud and dignified state it's in if this is the quality of the intellects on their side.
Germany could fight a war of attrition. They had more population than the Soviets at many points of the war. It's a war of maneuver that they didn't have the resources for, which the Soviets in turn did. That's how they lost the war in the first place. The Soviets would never have made it into Berlin without maneuver success.
>Germany could fight a war of attrition
No they god damn couldn't. They were invading Ukraine for food and Russia for fuel and their supply lines were getting absolutely shredded by bombing campaigns while they used slave labor to barely make up for a fraction of the total economic losses caused by their war mobilization.
>They were invading Ukraine for food
And the Soviets themselves were starving.
>Russia for fuel
Which was needed for maneuver warfare, not attrition. Remember that WW1 had primarily horse-drawn and train run logistics. It's mechanized maneuver that guzzles oil, which is where Germany's failure to supply fuel doomed them.
>their supply lines were getting absolutely shredded by bombing campaigns
Only later in the war, when synthetic fuel production took a massive dump due to bombing campaigns.
>while they used slave labor to barely make up for a fraction of the total economic losses caused by their war mobilization.
Yes, and they still could have shifted onto an attritional style of warfare, had they simply not been outmaneuvered by the Soviets. A nation mobilized for total war can keep fighting to the bitter end. The Germans could easily have kept fighting for many years had the Allies not physically moved themselves into Berlin.
>Germany could have won if they hadn't lost
>And the Soviets themselves were starving.
In no small part because they were destroying farms and food stocks Germans were overrunning to keep them from gaining use of them because they knew they'd win a war of attrition.
Do the math. If Soviets are starving in Russia, how aren't the Germans fricked? Did they have some sort superior logistics network and massive food reserves? No. No they didn't.
>Which was needed for maneuver warfare, not attrition.
LMAO. Rationing leads vehicles to attrit out. Rationing leads to reduced logistical effectiveness which leads to starvation among the troops which leads to troop attrition.
>Only later in the war
So when attrition was becoming a problem?
>The Germans could easily have kept fighting for many years had the Allies not physically moved themselves into Berlin.
Which the Allies were able to do because Germany got shitcanned at Stalingrad after the Axis siege got countersieged and starved the frick out before they could access the oil fields in the Caucasus. The entire eastern theater was about Germany desperately attempting to stave off logistical collapse, ultimately failing at a critical juncture, and getting its shit pushed in all the way back to Berlin. The war was a war of attrition, one Germany did not and was never going to win.
>Ukraine doesn’t have resources to fight the war of attrition.
We will provide the resources.
>The Washington would sacrifice every single country in europe if needed. The European population is 100% expendable
Blaming America for helping innocents defend themselves and not Russia for attacking in the first place. VatBlack person detected.
>Ukraine doesn’t have resources to fight the war of attrition.
it has more than russia you moron
Ukraine doesn't have the resources. But the west has, and is providing them. And will continue to provide them, unless you guys frick up and re-elect Trump or something.
>The European population is 100% expendable
Bold of you to assume we aren't ready to risk our lives if it means killing russians. You scum have been a blight on the face of this planet for far too long.
Human waves are fantastic when you have a major population advantage and don't care about your soldiers.
Reminder that pre-WW2 USSR had almost 2x the population of Russia today. They can't afford horrific losses.
Strategy won't work in this war for Russia since they no longer have the demographics to absorb the losses, there's no actual threat to Russia and everyone knows it, and so there's little to no appetite to sacrifice for this war.
...and yes Ukraine's demographics are even worse, but they have every reason in the world to fight no matter what.
it's especially bad when you consider that absorbing ukraine into their demographics is one of the reasons why they invaded in the first place
>Is this really a viable military strategy long-term
Why not? It worked for North Korea and Vietnam.
ukraine to build new 50,000 body military cemetary - ukrinform
https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-society/3697967-memorialne-vijskove-kladovise-rozrahovane-na-50-tisac-pohovan-minveteraniv.html