Latest Thread
As I said Russia has 4-5 times more manpower than Ukraine. So even if they lose 1.5 times more they still win the war on attrition.If those numbers are correct than why does Europe need the US as a backstop for their peacekeepers? Your country voted for Russia in the UN and now I am hearing reports they want an alliance with Russia in syria because they don't want other parts of the country to have any Turkish influence.
are these the same numbers where Zelensky said only 40k Ukrainians died?As I said Russia has 4-5 times more manpower than Ukraine. So even if they lose 1.5 times more they still win the war on attrition.
Same was with Germany in WW2.
No its verifiable Russian demographics. Not propagandized KIA statistics.are these the same numbers where Zelensky said only 40k Ukrainians died?
So it came to you in a dream?No its verifiable Russian demographics. Not propagandized KIA statistics.
Just listen what Anal-lena Bir-bok (German Foreign Ministry) has said.I'd like to see Germany, France
, Italy
and Sweden
announce similarly scaled orders for IRIS-T, SAMP/T, Mistral and, RB 70NG missiles in their own respective market
24th September 1941, was the last day that the comrades would have any food left but USA came, just in time.As I said Russia has 4-5 times more manpower than Ukraine. So even if they lose 1.5 times more they still win the war on attrition.
Same was with Germany in WW2.
Funny, the President and Vice President admitted Europe helping Ukraine won't win the war, Trump referenced Zelensky that he and Europe need the US, or it will be a very very long war and that is Zelensky's own words. Translation: Russia > Europe + Ukraine(according to the US and Ukrainian Presidents). You have open source intelligence but you don't have the Intelligence the U.S. President has which is the best in the world and they are telling you they have no solution for making Ukraine win the war. Even if I play along with you that your open-source intelligence is correct the Pentagon has concluded no amount of support for Ukraine can win the war since they inform the commander in chief before the commander in chief makes the choices.People that keep claiming that Russia's manpower advantage is going to lead to them inevitably winning the war, are stuck decades in the past.
Against thousands of drones, satellites, modern artillery, minefields, and the capability of modern weapons supporting modern defensive infrastructure, it's nearly impossible to win a near peer war based on infantry and the ability to continuously sustain losses. You need mechanized infantry and armor support to break through defensive positions. Russia still has adequate levels of armor remaining, but they're burning through it at deeply unsustainable levels. That's not my opinion, we have open source intelligence that proves that reality and we've seen shortages in some sectors lead to Russia using things like Chinese 4-wheelers and a huge number civilian vehicles to transport infantry, rather than conventional APCs and IFVs.
Ukraine's entire defensive strategy revolves around inflicting mass destruction on Russia's armor and most capable artillery, forcing the Russians to use thousands (sometimes tens of thousands of infantry), to take minor objectives over long periods of time. Bahkmut, which led to the effective destruction of Wagner is a perfect example of that strategy. Avdiivka and Pokrovsk have been similar examples. In all these places Russian casualties have been hellatious and deeply exacerbated by the amount of armor that Russia chewed up trying to take those cities.
It's not that manpower doesn't matter at all. Of course it does. But modern offensive war requires that ability to attack in mechanized fashion and Russia relies on that strategy as much as anyone. Ukraine is slowly, but surely de-mechinizing Russia, which will increasingly hinder their offensive capabilities.
So whats the argument? Russia doesnt have the population it and UN says it has?So it came to you in a dream?
It seems Trump is saying that both Ukraine and Europe cant win a war against Russia.
View attachment 73977
by telling it like it is I hope he means how the war started or Ukraine's actual losses in the state of the union address.
View attachment 73978
The historic Russian strength has also been theres more where that came from.People that keep claiming that Russia's manpower advantage is going to lead to them inevitably winning the war, are stuck decades in the past.
Against thousands of drones, satellites, modern artillery, minefields, and the capability of modern weapons supporting modern defensive infrastructure, it's nearly impossible to win a near peer war based on infantry and the ability to continuously sustain losses. You need mechanized infantry and armor support to break through defensive positions. Russia still has adequate levels of armor remaining, but they're burning through it at deeply unsustainable levels. That's not my opinion, we have open source intelligence that proves that reality and we've seen shortages in some sectors lead to Russia using things like Chinese 4-wheelers and a huge number civilian vehicles to transport infantry, rather than conventional APCs and IFVs.
Ukraine's entire defensive strategy revolves around inflicting mass destruction on Russia's armor and most capable artillery, forcing the Russians to use thousands (sometimes tens of thousands of infantry), to take minor objectives over long periods of time. Bahkmut, which led to the effective destruction of Wagner is a perfect example of that strategy. Avdiivka and Pokrovsk have been similar examples. In all these places Russian casualties have been hellatious and deeply exacerbated by the amount of armor that Russia chewed up trying to take those cities.
It's not that manpower doesn't matter at all. Of course it does. But modern offensive war requires that ability to attack in mechanized fashion and Russia relies on that strategy as much as anyone. Ukraine is slowly, but surely de-mechinizing Russia, which will increasingly hinder their offensive capabilities.