The War in the Ukraine

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't buy those excuses.

According to American government media, when Ukraine is performing well, that is because they used western tactics. And now that they're getting destroyed, it's because they "can't let go of their slavic roots" (lmao).

This offensive was planned by NATO and no different from other offensives planned by NATO. They moved in and tried to use speed and numbers. But this time, there was enough Russian forces to make a defensive line.

I can guarantee you that if this offensive had taken ground, any credit for taking said ground would immediately be given by US state sources to be due to "NATO training and tactics".

What we are seeing here is the baptism of NATO equipment in its first real shooting conflict. "Battles" against shamefully weak opponents that barely have RPG-7s as anti tank and foes that had a handful of SA-5s as their entire national air defense is nothing but a joke.

Just as Russia had not proved itself by stomping on south ossetia and chechnya and the reality of Russian doctrines were shown in the opening battles of Ukraine, we are now seeing the reality of NATO ground tactics being shown, for the first time against a real enemy that has all the basic weapons, command and logistics of war.
I don’t know. After all, the Ukrainians have received rather limited training on the new equipment and even less so on the operational side of modern combined arms. Assaulting highly entrenched positions without air support is extremely difficult.

As for NATO, they demonstrated in Iraq that they are capable of devastating a developed country with formidable air defenses in a short span of 6 weeks through air power alone. The UN survey in 1991 led by under secretary General Martti Ahtisaari described the aftermath of the bombing as “near apocalyptic” and that Iraq was degraded into a “pre-industrial” state. Subsequent UN reports claimed that 100,000s of Iraqi children died in the 90s as a result of the devastated Iraqi infrastructure.

Even without air support, US armor units proved themselves vastly superior to Iraqi, as demonstrated in the battle of 77 Easting where one US armored squadron destroyed an entire Republican Guard brigade. The US units were under artillery fire, but drove through at near full throttle and firing on the move they took out all Iraqi spotters. Technology and proper training go hand in hand.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
In particular, this tweet piqued my interest.

To be honest, that tweet sounds like cope. People were rightfully mocking similar excuses from the Russians when they were screwing up around Ugledar in a similar fashion.

It can be argued that in this case, it is slightly worse as they got taken out even before reaching the Russian lines. And while it is true losses were bound to happen during offensives, it is also true propagandist were pushing the narrative that western equipment was going to steam roll Russian positions.
 

Right_People

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don’t know. After all, the Ukrainians have received rather limited training on the new equipment and even less so on the operational side of modern combined arms. Assaulting highly entrenched positions without air support is extremely difficult.

As for NATO, they demonstrated in Iraq that they are capable of devastating a developed country with formidable air defenses in a short span of 6 weeks through air power alone. The UN survey in 1991 led by under secretary General Martti Ahtisaari described the aftermath of the bombing as “near apocalyptic” and that Iraq was degraded into a “pre-industrial” state. Subsequent UN reports claimed that 100,000s of Iraqi children died in the 90s as a result of the devastated Iraqi infrastructure.

Even without air support, US armor units proved themselves vastly superior to Iraqi, as demonstrated in the battle of 77 Easting where one US armored squadron destroyed an entire Republican Guard brigade. The US units were under artillery fire, but drove through at near full throttle and firing on the move they took out all Iraqi spotters. Technology and proper training go hand in hand.
>Iraq
>Developed
>Formidable Air Defenses

That glorified colonial expedition is the modern equivalent of the British army destroying some African tribe armed with spears.
I remember hearing a documentary in which an American officer said that many soldiers simply did not go to the barracks that day.


Aaaaanyways, another column of western equipment gone.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
After one year of fighting, anyone seriously think that the Ukrianan doesn't deliver better perfomance than any other army except Russia?

I mean, the USA/German/Italian instructors,military organisation and policial class has ZERO real war experience.
They has lot of good fight against indigenous peple using tropical fruits as weapon, lacking real weapons and organisation.

Saying that anyone else could pull better result with the NATO weapons is like saying a chap with a new driving license could fare better than a professional drive with 20 years of experience, because the rookie has lot of fresh and proper training.
I agree with the fact that most NATO armies haven’t been tested at all while the US was tested back in 1991, but not to the near-peer threat level of testing. However mid to late 20th century military history has demonstrated that armies with initiative, adaptability, good combined arms education and institutional knowledge, and rapid decision-making processes win all wars of the current form. Until there is a paradigm shift, those points will remain supreme.
 
Last edited:

KYli

Brigadier
Will be interesting to see how many left in two weeks... The challenger mbt are not in battle yet.

I was thinking they would go full yolo to Bahkmut where flanks look quite soft but they have gone south like they have said for the past 6 months...Still positives actions from Ukraine forces around Bakhmut but with forces not at the level of these ''probing'' in force. Will they change focus ?
Taking Bahkmut at best is just a psychological victory. On the other hand, taking south means cutting off the Russian land bridge and isolating Russian military in South front which is a strategical victory.

If Ukraine decided to abandon the attack on south front and focus on the Bahkmut, then the counter offensive is already failed.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
I agree with the fact that most NATO armies haven’t been tested at all while the US was tested back in 1991, but not to the near-peer threat level of testing. However mid to late 20th century military history has demonstrated that armies with initiative, adaptability, good combined arms education and institutional knowledge, and rapid decision-making processes win all wars of the current form. Until there is a paradigm shift, those points will remain supreme.
I presume you think that the NATO armies sports these superior charactaristics.

Based on what ?

Or in 2nd ww germany lost because of the lack of adaptability and good education ?
All that we know at the moment is the Ukrainan army, with good one year full spectrum combat experience , NATO support, training, inteligence, C&C and the best Pentagon kitchen sink doesn't show better results than Iraq in 91 .

MAybe this will change in coming days, maybe the NATO tanks will stomp the T-90ms, who know ?
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
You can't really fight a NATO army war without heavily using airpower to supress the enemy. Ukraine doesn't have that. They don't have SEAD, they don't have air support and they barely have AD. They can't fight the Soviet way either because they don't have shells, nor do they have enough tanks to throw at something like Russia can and still remain a effective fighting force.
 

Atomicfrog

Captain
Registered Member
Taking Bahkmut at best is just a psychological victory. On the other hand, taking south means cutting off the Russian land bridge and isolating Russian military in South front which is a strategical victory.

If Ukraine decided to abandon the attack on south front and focus on the Bahkmut, then the counter offensive is already failed.
If they cannot secure more fund and more material, it will end.

Ukraine government are searching for more funds... they need a victory way more than a strategical victory.
 
Top