Why couldnt Russia just smash into Ukraine with millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and aircraft all at once like they did in WW2?

Why couldn’t Russia just smash into Ukraine with millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and aircraft all at once like they did in WW2?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They tried that. It was a logistical clusterfrick and ended in a stategic feint.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The soviets pulled it off 70 years ago

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes I too remember how the soviets easily beat the Germans in 1941.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          My bad I forgot Germany won on the eastern front

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re mistaken, America and Great Britain won the eastern front. They bombed German supply lines 24/7, forcing Germany to drive the majority of their tanks to war rather than ship them. This meant they had gear boxes that were stripped to shit by the time they arrived, and ended up being substantially less effective at combatting enemy tanks.
            Luckily the flak-88 was great for shooting tanks… but the Western Allies had those tied up fighting the non-stop air campaign I already mentioned
            And then of course western manufacturing made everything that got used by Allie’s forces on the eastern front. God bless America and Great Britain, gott strafe puccia

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              complete bullshit. the soviets stopped the german advance on the whole frontline by 1941 already, long before any lend lease. they won major battles at novgorod, moscow and rostov. by end of 1941 the germans already had a million casualties and the german generals told hitler that they should retreat. hitler refused which made the soviet counter offensive in the winter of 41/42 a huge success. by spring 1942 it was pretty much over. the stalingrad offensive was pure cope and hopium and led to another disaster. when the western allies began to do anything meaningful the war in the east was already won by the soviets.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >long before any lend lease
                People keep saying this, yet Finnish soldiers in 1941 would immediately note that the soviets were eating meat rations made in the US. Maybe it wasn't under the lend-lease, but they certainly did get help long before lend-lease.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the soviets stopped the german advance on the whole frontline by 1941 already
                The German advance wasn’t stopped until 1943, snow Black person

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                kek, well than look at a map of the frontline and tell me what advances the germans made after 41 in the north and central part of the eastern front.

                they managed to relieve a few besieged units that were encircled and noticed that further advances in the north and central sector are completely impossible.

                thats why they went after stalingrad, thats the only part of the frontline where some movement was still possible and even that turned out to be wrong.

                the forced germany prepared for the battle of kursk were to small to endanger the frontline. even if they had won at kursk, it would have just bought them some time.

                not even talking about 44. while the americans were staging d-day the red army was already rushing into poland, the baltics and the balkan. the german army had totally collapsed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Where did you get the food, the fuel, the wheels and the ammo to rampage across europe snow monkey? You sure as shit were not able to feed yourself after germans captured most of ukraine following 1941

                Reality on the ground is best you could have hoped for without burgers and bongs bailing you out was a stalemate as german logistics could not project far enough into the interior while you dug in on the volga river banks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, but its somewhat true. Lend lease started off slow initially. It peaked after the tide was turned. It also provided a significant amount, but nowhere did it sustain soviet union solely. At most it was about 10% of soviet production. Most importantly, lend lease was beneficial because it provides some things soviets lacked for at the time, such as aviation fuel or trucks. However, it simply just was not as much as you think it was. You cant sustain a country of 200 million with 20 million soldiers on lendlease.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Even easier than that. Soviet army collapsed in 41 in many ways because of fricked up logistics, US and UK basically built soviet logistics from scratch (thousands of trucks, tires, rail cars, etc, etc, etc), among other help.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Also Stalin executed most of the competent soviet commanders before the war.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are multiple reasons for it, yes. Fricking up command, instilling a fear of initiative, having fricked up logistics, being in preparation mode for attack (and getting caught with the pants down) and never training defense that much, etc, etc, etc.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Allie’s forces on the eastern front
              none such existed there. All there was were vatniks fighting germans after started the war together to carve up east europe while planning to stab each other in the back after it

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah in 1945 after the allies bombed the German industry to rubble and gave enough lend lease to the soviets to allow them to actually equip their army.They also lost 6 times as many soldiers as Germany you moron.Their tactics were fricking moronic.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              in 1944-45 the kill ratio was 1:1 thanks to the artillery superiority the soviets achieved, in part explained because the germans lost a lot equipment by trying to hold onto places like morons and by wasting resources on wunderwaffe projects and useless equipment like the tiger tanks or fighter jets, but yeah, I guess that makes the russian win even more worthless

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            90% of the entire Soviet logistics was western lend-lease, you do know that, right?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Most people dont know that Anon. Not only did we give them the P-39, but before they realized how much better of a low altitude fighter it was, they would pillage the gunsights from them to mount haphazardly into their DOGSHIT early Yak and Mig fighers

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no american/british lend-lease this time

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Indeed, now Russia is backed by the mighty Iranian/North Korean lend lease.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And china

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mighty Russian bear is now backed by strong Korean tiger, and powerful Persian lion, oh and Belarusian potato *~~))

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There was no significant British lendlease. British themselves had to rely on American lendlease. They got even more than soviets, which is why to pay for it, they gave away almost all of their overseas bases to US

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you talking about you lying c**t?

            British aid to russia came at the most critical juncture, was faught into theatre at huge cost and prevented the capitulation of the Russians by providing armour and fighters for the defence of Moscow.

            Go sniff farts Warriortard.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There were no precision weapons 70 years ago.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ukraine had jack shit at the start of the invasion, they were the epitome of poor eastern european shithole nation with extremely minimal western training.
          just goes to show how important logistics is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were already geared up for war prior to the invasion. Russias attack was an act of self defence

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Indian. Leave. Boil your tap water and go.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Ukraine was coming right for us!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Each HIMARS Salvo brings us closer to peace in Europe.
          I love peace.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Precision weapons didn't exist 70 years ago you fricking moron

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Stuka was a precision weapon

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it absolutely was not

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes it was they could land bombs on individual tanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                with how much consistency? It was dumb luck if they hit, and dumb luck if the hit was actually a kill.
                Not even remotely comparable to current capabilities.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/IKYyPiG.jpeg

                The stuka wasn't even a close support weapon, germany didn't use CAS in ww2 other than as exceptions or ad hoc adaptions

                >Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions on the Eastern Front of World War II. The majority of these were undertaken while flying the Junkers Ju 87, although 430 were flown in ground-attack variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, severely damaging the battleship Marat, as well as sinking a cruiser (incomplete and heavily damaged Petropavlovsk), a destroyer (the Leningrad-class destroyer Minsk) and 70 landing craft. Rudel also claimed to have destroyed more than 800 vehicles of all types, over 150 artillery, anti-tank or anti-aircraft positions, 4 armored trains, as well as numerous bridges and supply lines.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Summary_of_military_career

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                German aces didn't have as stringent standards as western pilots for confirming kills, especially as the war went on . IIRC American pilots had to either have the kill on the gun camera, or have a wingman confirm it.

                He certainly hit a lot of tanks, but I dont trust that it was a confirmed kill, meaning that the tank was completely destroyed, and not crippled and repaired later.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let's not forget that the Nazis explicitly credited an entire unit's kills to its commander for propaganda reasons.

                In any case, that anon is a dipshit. The "precision guidance" in the Stuka's case was the pilot, which would make kamikazes "precision guided" weapons as well. The saddest part is that Fritz-X and ASM-N-2 Bat were both WWII guided weapons used in combat, so it's not like he even needed to jerk off the Luftwaffe over a memeplane like the Stuka.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He was credited with
                according to what standards? Nazis made shit up for good PR all the time.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                hundreds of tank kills
                not even a dozen dogfights
                he lived life on easy mode it seems

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not that anon, but yeah. SOME stuka pilots absolutely could. But the guy whose video I linked wrote a whole book about it and if I recall correctly, a stuka pilot was good enough and qualified when he could hit was it either a 100x100m target or 50x50m target. Anyways, a target area which would fit in a factory, barracks, railway hub or what have you. And this guys, I guess we could call it his take on the subject seems to me atleast, plausible enough, especially since it's mostly based on primary sources. So in a nutshell my take on his take is that yes, the Stuka was a precision weapon, of and for it's time. There was two ways of hitting a 50x50m target at the time and basically you could either fly a heavy four engine bomber fleet waay up there and drop a few thousand bombs, of which would hit a 20x10km area, of which some dozens of bombs would hit the intended 50x50m target area. If done right, the end result is destroyed target area. Or, you could take a wing or three of light single engine planes, reeeally go in there right in there until the 50x50m target fills your sights, drop a dozen or three of bombs and the end result is a destroyes target area. Now, light bombers like (but not only) stuka were ofcourse more flexible in where they could be deployed, easier on logistics and so on, mission planning, I'd assume would have also been more flexible and as such they were yes, used in a more dynamic manner than heavier bombers, but I think the idea of calling in in close air support on individual pinpoint targets in a modern fashion is a bit fallacious. I do understand how this image is easily formed though, and I'm not claiming it never happened, but I'd say the idea of stukas hunting down individual tanks may have been more often a case of a wing of stukas being sent after an armored breaktrough, which would atleast partially, fit inside a typical target area of 50x50m. Anyways here's the link.

                ?si=er2LWwSPjRR1KZZ2

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The stuka wasn't even a close support weapon, germany didn't use CAS in ww2 other than as exceptions or ad hoc adaptions

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What are you taking about? Germs were one of the first to pioneer CAS with 20-minute call in times as early as Fall Gelb, Burgers perfected it later on.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it was carried mostly by ukrainian and belarussian chads, not russian mutts

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Gerasimov wore an entire book on why that's a stupid idea.
        Gerasimov, the man who decided to visit Lyman while his generals were dropping like flies, the man who approved paratroopers dropping in Kiev to coordinate with a reinforcing arm coming from the west in the Kharkiv direction, the second longest possible route to Kiev, the man whose only successful action near bakhmut via way of soledar, which he still fricked up several time over, suspiciously came the week after perun mentioned it on his video, had managed to notice why large concentrations of troops is no longer a viable method of breakthrough against late 20th century armed forces.
        There is NO excuse for thinking attrition is a valid form of warfare against any notable western armament at this point.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Might have worked if they conducted their initial assault properly (Thunder Run) rather than whatever you call that clusterfrick they tried. When did he write this book? Before the debacle that started in 2022?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There WAS an excuse. Near infinite stockpiles of sacrificial slavshit made 50 years ago. But not infinite men like 80 years ago. Since that's when they lost all that and are losing the rest now. Including the stockpiles.
          It boggles the mind how that nation survives at all on only oil and gas and misery.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The soviets pulled it off 70 years ago
        70 years ago the uke's were on their side, along with a bunch of other nations that the russians used to control, or were allies. now they're a rotting carcass of an empire, invading it's former holdings in a vague attempt to stave off their impending collapse. oh- and all those former allies who used to help them and keep them together are now supporting their opponent because they've lost their damn minds. they've been rotting for a long time, they've just put it on the world stage now.

        also the russians didn't smash into anywhere in WW2. there was no inexorable red tide that was unending and just washed over everything. they retreated, and burned the fields as they went, only digging in when Stalingrad was threatened. why? because it had Stalin's name on it, and it'd be embarrassing to him to lose it. so they dug in, and everyone threw their backs into trying to conquer a city with no strategic value until one of them at last broke. that was when they finally tried to move things forwards.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >70 years ago the uke's were on their side
          most of ukraine was in german hands for most of the war

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because they were backed up by the logistics of the Ford Motor Company.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And 70 years of defections, murders, gulags and corrupt idiocracy later, here we are. Nothing but a primitive cargo cult.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Puccian Pidoration fricking wishes it had a fraction of the military power and competence of the Soviet Union.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can you even call it a try when many soldiers didn't know where the frick they were going, nobody bothered to bring enough fuel, ammo, or parts, and basically nobody in the field seem to act like they were in command of everything? You'd almost have to work at it in order to frick up as badly as they did.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Anyone remember the vids of the initial push where Russian soldiers were walking around suburban neighbourhoods not meeting any resistance (yet)? They looked exactly like a group of dudes playing a paintball match or larping as soldiers

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The soviets pulled it off 70 years ago

      The difference between now and then seems to be there's no good staging area to gather your forces before advancing on the enemy. Both sides use small skirmish parties because anything more than a few vehicles and a platoon will get drones and arty'd to death beforehand, there's nowhere on the battlefield to hide. And that's not even touching on the how fricked any russian logistical ambitions are no matter how small of a footprint they have to service

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Did they though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >mom found the macaroni drawer

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >be Russian tank commander
          >go to training
          >turns out training is in the Ukraine
          >nice, free washing machine
          >ring wife to tell her, she runs back from the outhouse to pick up the wall phone
          >khokhols track signal
          >oshit.png
          >see a small white object fly up from the ground and dive towards tank
          >macaroni spill out of storage box

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They're fighting against American materiel support instead of with it this time.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >like they did in WW2
    You know remember that the USSR was more than just Russia and the vast majority of its component states were far smarter than the Muscovites whose main contribution was in manpower.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is much weaker as a civilization vs the USSR. It slowly degraded into a mob state and the oil industry finished it off by giving the kleptocrats and mob associates unrivaled soft power. When the crooks took total control all the high-IQs ran away leaving it in its current state.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    in the Soviet state industry was created for war production. even light industry had to submit a war time production plan after the Manchurian crisis.
    It's why they had more tanks than the rest of the world combined in 1939
    they had been preparing for the next great war for a decade b
    Modern Russia, in the other hand, was not preparing to fight anything but a bigger Storm-333. They were not prepared for organized resistance

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >much smaller population of military aged men than countries had back then
    >no lend lease
    >infact lend leasers support their enemy
    >enemy has superior modern technology that beats raw numbers
    >tanks being outdated
    >tiny economy and industrial capacity
    >small and inefficient air force
    >1v1 war so they only outnumber their enemy 3 to 1 which is not enough to conquer a country the size of Ukraine
    >economic sanctions (yes they do work lmao cope more vatBlack folk)
    >people are just more educated, even in russia, so higher iq people are less likely to end up in military so you are left with asiatic mystery meat and rural inbreds

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks
    This would require enormous logistical chains which can't be sustained under modern precision weapon strikes. RuAF couldn't supply even for 100 000 group in the Sumy - Kyiv theatre in 2022 and RF's logistical capabilities only degraded since that time.
    >aircraft
    Saturation with ground AA assets.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Time to bring out the Heavy tanks.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because they have neither

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don't have the millions of soldiers or thousands of tanks and aircraft anymore (nor the lend-lease aid that made it possible).
    Even just what they started this war with was already too much for their logistics to handle, so even if they still had such a vast army they'd not have been able to apply it any better than they actually did: the only difference would be even more abandooning.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cuz that wasnt russia, that was the USSR, russia is not even a shadow of what the USSR was

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough general points.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why couldn’t Russia just smash into Ukraine with millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and aircraft all at once like they did in WW2?

    His spirit guides every ATGM and FPV into the bosom of a zigger tank

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For me its semen hitler

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. They don't have enough weapons
    2. There are can be mutiny. Even today after military expansion Russian internal security force is much larger than military fighting in Ukraine. When soldiers fighting in Ukraine outnumber internal zogbosts 5:1 it may be dangerous for regime, see Prigozhin's convoys.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People give the Germans way more credit than they’re due when it came to their logistics and weapons platforms. The US supplied systems are far superior to what the Russians have and the endless ability to resupply helps as well.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't have the logistics. As others have pointed out, their massive campaigns in WWII were only possible because of absolutely *ludicrous* amounts of supplies from the US... including a hundred thousand trucks to carry those supplies from the railheads to the front lines.

    The current force is about all that Russia can support, and even that is heavily dependent upon railways to get supplies close enough that Scooby Doo vans can get them to the troops.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Firstly, the USSR isn't Russia. Secondly, a socialist economy works different to capitalism

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To conscript millions of soldiers and build up thousands of tanks in 2021 would have convinced the West that Russia was planning on conquering all of Europe and gotten a direct NATO intervention because they wouldn't believe that Russia was conscripting millions upon millions of soldiers for Ukraine but for a push on all of Europe.

    It would have started World War 3.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Cold War didn’t start ww3

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >convinced the West
      west has been consistently putting their head in the sand since the 90s, all through the 2008 and 2014 total appeasement with even in 2022 trying to offer helicopter rides to the fighters instead of helping

      If puccians were able to actually blyatkrieg their way across their former imperial colonies all that would follow is quiet cope and carefully proceeding to do business with them as usual. As the reality on the ground is that since puccia is not physically bordering them they dont feel a direct threat. Only time they really started arming themselves against them was when they were planning on turning central euro into a warzone

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you fricking homosexuals think nothing has changed in nearly 100 years? Nations are not defined by magic or RPG rules where you get to choose a certain quality and retain it forever as an inherent perk.

    Yes Russia once had the capability to clog the mechanisms of its enemy with sheer manpower. It used that capability and fricked over its demographics to the point that it's never coming back. A WW2 sized army today would leave Russia with nothing to actually maintain itself internally, something it's struggling with as is.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >like they did in WW2
    I know this is bait but people do think like this.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They tried and they died.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They never amassed 3000 tanks and 5000 planes for a single attack

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > 5000 planes
        What were they supposed to do, 9/11 all their civilian aircraft? How about you stop fantasizing about a Russia that doesn't exist?

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Besides the meme that Russia has more men aviable, not enough soldier and gear war ready.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because their objective was never all out war?

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is not at war. Putin has not declared war on Ukraine. The SMO is not a war. Putin just wants to denazify and take Ukraine in peace and be back in business trading with western partners.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why couldn’t Russia just smash into Ukraine with millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and aircraft all at once like they did in WW2?
    because Russia is a poor shit-hole.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are several reasons why Russia couldn't just launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine like they did during World War II:

    1. International backlash: In the modern world, countries are more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. A large-scale invasion of Ukraine would likely lead to strong condemnation and sanctions from the international community, potentially isolating Russia diplomatically and economically.

    2. Military capabilities: While Russia certainly has a large and powerful military, a full-scale invasion of Ukraine would still be a significant undertaking. Ukraine has also been strengthening its military capabilities in recent years, making a direct invasion more challenging.

    3. Guerilla warfare: In a modern conflict, a large-scale invasion would likely lead to prolonged guerilla warfare and insurgency, similar to what Russia experienced in Chechnya. This type of warfare is difficult to combat and can be costly in terms of both resources and casualties.

    4. Political considerations: Invading Ukraine would likely have significant political consequences for Russia, both domestically and internationally. It could lead to increased instability in the region and damage Russia's reputation on the world stage.

    Overall, while Russia certainly has the military capabilities to launch a large-scale invasion of Ukraine, there are numerous factors that would make such a move risky and potentially counterproductive.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don't have competent generals to plan it.
    They don't have competent junior officers to execute it.
    They don't have the logistics to support it.

    Even with the relatively small invasion force they sent they managed to run out of supplies and stall out before even reaching Kiev.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the USA is supplying Ukraine. The Russians sowed the wind, now they reap the whirlwind.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even in WW2 the literal only reason they were able to do that was American logistics and all the small shit they donated like entire factories and tooling and an innumerable amount of vehicles and raw materials. Even if we pretended shit like ballistic missiles, drones, ATGM's and so on didn't exist the Russian military literally doesn't have the logistical capacity for it unless if you gave them like a decade to prepare.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They thought Ukraine would fold without a fight so they went in with even less troops than the piggers

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >like they did in WW2

    We're in the Winter War of WW2.

    USSR/Russia giving terms that were rejected, resulting in a war that won them more than they wanted. And you have US/UK/Nazis rubbing shoulders in Finland/Ukraine as "volunteers" and commanders. After which big army restructuring, and then a real world war.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They tried and ran out of actual gas. That's the story behind the columns of vehicles

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mass troops up
    >they get bombed to shit
    >spread troops out
    >they get easily gunned down by defensive emplacements
    What Russia's doing now IS the mass human wave tactic. It's just the cost effective version that slowly meat grinds the opponent. Ukraine is scoring a much better k/d ratio, but they just don't have as much manpower when it comes to dragging this out another 5 years. Hopefully having enough oil refineries explode causes them to reconsider

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but they just don't have as much manpower when it comes to dragging this out another 5 years.
      I want to see the K/D in 2 years when Russia starts feeling restricted in its equipment.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they just don't have as much manpower when it comes to dragging this out another 5 years.
      I find it a bit nonsensical when people talk about recruitment like Russia has endless supplies and Ukraine is almost running out. Other problems will end this war far before manpower does.
      What you have to understand is that Russia has already ran through it's supply of "expendable" soldiers and it's recruiting more and more of the wealthy class.
      Ukraine doesn't suffer nearly as much from having members of the nobility die in the fighting as Russia does, because Ukrainian society is in a rapid state of evolution; a true meritocracy.
      The fire rises.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why couldn’t Russia just smash into Ukraine with millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and aircraft all at once like they did in WW2?
    Well, the first pharse wasn't a realistic plan.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dude just conveniently put your entire army within the radius of a nuke

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia didn't fight in WW2 the Soviet Union did, Russia is to the USSR what the UK is to the British Empire.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They try. But in reality it doesn't work to just keep throwing meat-walls of bodies at a problem until it goes away.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *