Quote (chopstickz777 @ Apr 23 2022 01:09pm)
Hmm I find it interesting that you think a force of 100k soldiers attacking a country with an army 3 times that size that is constantly being supplied with the latest NATO/US gear, has been flooded with weapons for 8 years, and constantly receives satellite intelligence from the US, received direct training from US/NATO trainers, etc, and yet still managed to destroy >50% of their heavy military equipment, virtually all of their air and navy, as well as all military industrial factories and fuel refineries, and completely end any chance of a Ukrainian offensive against Donbass, took Mariupol where thousands of hardcore Nazi's willing to fight to the death and using human shields were stationed, and took dozens of other towns and cities, many of which without a fight, and overall took thousands of square kilometers in less than a month...
Is a "failure" because they haven't taken the WHOLE country yet. Despite the fact that Ukraine still has some 250k soldiers to throw into the battle, and are mobilizing more against Russia's 100k in the East of the country.
Yes it's true, Russia will need to send in more than the initial 100k-strong force to take a significant percentage of the country. But to call it a failure they haven't advanced at a rate 20x faster than the US did in Iraq, while facing a far superior enemy that has received massive support for the past 8 years, is ridiculous. As a military man you should understand that, but of course as usual you are blinded by your hysterical Russophobia and your desire to view the Russian military as incompetent or weak, when it clearly isn't the case.
A - 150k Russians. At a time. Because Russia has a million men under arms and can rotate units in and out to put fresh troops on the line.
B - ~200K Ukrainians. With little ability to take shell shocked units off the line, and the need to keep significant reserves around Kyiv and therefore not on the line.
C - Russia has satellites too.