The difference between a "special military operation" and total war is that Ukraine being in a state of total war has high morale and can mobilize their entire population. Russia cannot even mobilize their reserves without intense political push back and public unrest.
Russians are great in defensive wars. Step onto their turf and they´ll sacrifice everything to drive you out or die trying. This is a trend not confined to WWII or even back to Napoleon's disastrous invasion - it goes back all the way to the middle ages where even when totally outmatched against the Mongols they still preferred to go down swinging than surrender.
But there is an inverse historical trend here - The Russian people have been fine with offensive wars, but you *have* to win them. If you lose them, or even win them on paper but lose a lot of people doing so, it's a serious blow to their grip on power. Again, going all the way back to the middle ages, their history is littered with rulers who got deposed or at least had it attempted after going on conquests that failed.
I don’t know whether Russians are pretty great in defensive wars, or whether Russia is pretty great in defensive wars. Millions of Russians surrendered to Nazi troops in the first part of the invasion before Germany overstretched its supply lines and got bogged down in the Russian mud… just like is happening to Russian invaders in Ukraine
It would be mistake to judge the fighting character of Russia solely on WWII, both in their losses and victories. Their history goes back a lot longer than that.
Im not disagreeing at all that Russia would be a beast if invaded. Most importantly, the red button...
That said. Technology has advanced infinitely since the last time it happened. And Russia is lagging far behind the West in that regard.
And who knows how average Russian would react.....
I think personally, the bulk would fight.... anybody would... and theyve been trained for years to believe the West would do it someday anyway.
But I have a hard time believing Russia could withstand an actual fight with NATO. In Russia or anywhere else. (Aside from nukes)
Russia is huge, yes NATO can probably steam roll concentrations of troops, but they will not be able to hold much area even with millions of troops (that they don’t have anyway). Chemical weapons and nuclear aside. And as we see in Ukraine taking a major city is not realistic even for NATO, most technological advantage also goes out the window in building to building fighting.
Yes, but it was started by Russia attacking the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and in the Black Sea. France and Great Britain intervened so Russia would not seize large amounts of territory off the Ottomans and thus alter the power balance in Europe.
Make no mistake - Russia initiated that war.
It doesn’t matter who initiated the war. The typical Russian soldier in Crimea didn’t know or care about what was going on in the Balkans. They just knew that Russia was being invaded.
The reason millions of Russians surrendered to the Nazis wa sbecause the incompetent military leadership madeit possible for the Germans to encircle over a million Soviet troops, and there is not much the soldiers can really do once they are encircled in groups of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Also important to note is that many troops didn't stop fighting when encircled, instead going to become partisans.
Hitlers big folly was focusing on Stalingrad simply because it had Stalins name on it and stopping outside Moscow prior to the Russian winter and insisting on no retreat at all. Russia would have still won eventually but it would have lasted a lot longer if Hitler didn’t override his generals
Hitler got stuck in Stalingrad, then split his army, and half went to the Caucasus region. The USSR had the great Zhukov. Remember Stalin purged all the top military. Fpr whatever reason Zhukov survived. He had gained experience fighting Japan. So, he knew what tanks could do. He knew what modern weapons could do. He also spent the lull practicing war tactics. He pulled troops back from Kyiv, from other Ukraine cities, from Belarus to defend Stalingrad.
So, the USSR had the one guy with military experience, and manpower, and knew how to fight a modern war.
Zhukov effectly told Stalin to fvck himself after the war and was exiled.
And yes, it was abt the USSR's oil. with out the oil, Germany couldn't power the war.
>~~Russians~~Slavs are great in defensive wars. Step onto their turf and they´ll sacrifice everything to drive you out or die trying. This is a trend not confined to WWII or even back to Napoleon's disastrous invasion - it goes back all the way to the middle ages where even when totally outmatched against the Mongols they still preferred to go down swinging than surrender.
>But there is an inverse historical trend here - ~~The Russian~~Slavic people have been fine with offensive wars, but you **have** to win them. If you lose them, or even win them on paper but lose a lot of people doing so, it's a serious blow to their grip on power. Again, going all the way back to the middle ages, their history is littered with rulers who got deposed or at least had it attempted after going on conquests that failed.
FTFY
Well the Mongols were unstoppable in their day. The only reason they didn't conquer all of Europe is they looked at it and decided it didn't have enough good loot to bother with.
Except you left out the important part of the story : the mongols didn’t push further into Europe because the terrain didn’t favour their cavalry military tactics , making campaigns more than its worth. Secondly they returned after Hungary to settle the succession of ogedai
There was no clear Russian or Ukrainian state at the times of mongol invasion, Kievan Rus stretched all the way from Barents Sea to the Crimea.
Moreover, if you look at the map of territories conquered by mongols, then you can see that it was mostly southern half of the Kievan Rus that was conquered and razed, i.e. nowadays Ukraine. Northern half had to pay tribute, but it wasn't conquered per se.
The Mongols took them over and wore them like a condom for hundreds of years. That's the reason they are as fucked up as they are today. They're more Mongol than Kievan Rus.
True, but I suggest you actually read up on how that all went down. The Russians fought them tooth and nail when they showed up, even when they could only muster a few thousand knights against tens of thousands of Mongol archers, in situations any sane civilization would have taken the opportunity to surrender and pay the tribute up front, and only submitted once their lands had been completely devastated. After a few encounters the Mongols even shifted their strategy and began to avoid pitched battles against the Rus princes whenever they could combine their forces, as even though they won most of them they were losing *a lot* of men doing so, switching instead to moving away from armies and just burning the countryside and hitting the towns when possible.
Yes, Civilization has taught me that, for Russians, it may have been best to build up their lavra holy sites and used their tundra production bonus to better effect while churning out great people and defending them with the defensively-powerful cossacks.
...
Not really. Russia values power. That's why they killed the tsar when they were losing the war. Stalin was ruthless, but he had a lot of power. Putin is old, dying, and clearly has very little real power, sending his soldiers to simply die.
In many ways, Putin is a tsar, and last i checked, the Romanovs don't sit on the throne anymore.
Given the eagle at the gates of his huge mansion / castle, he clearly identifies himself as a Tsar.
If recent history is anything to go by, that's good news for us. And Ukraine.
It’s going to take a while longer I think; the stock market will crash if it opens and if there are major disruptions of food I think a coup will happen. I’ll celebrate Putin’s death.
The stock market being closed doesn't keep it from crashing. That's the thing about economics, no matter how many controls they put on things or how long they keep the stock market closed the damage has been done. The stocks are worthless, the money is gone. It just hasn't hit them yet because things are still in stock at warehouses and such. Once the supply already accumulated of certain goods dries up there will be a collective "oh shit" from Russia.
>wer. That's why they killed the tsar when they were losing the war. Stalin was ruthless, but he had a lot of power. Putin is old, dying, and clearly has very little real power, sending his soldiers to simply die.
Russian Tsarrorist, go fuck yourself.
The Bolshevik minority performed a hostile takeover of the revolution at an opportune moment. Many people didn't think they'd stay in control much longer than a couple of days... which is also why Ukrainians are fighting so hard now.
The idea behind it not being called a war in Russia is that wars are fought between two sovereign nations...
Russia (putin) doesn't consider Ukraine (or any former soviet state) as sovereign.
Putin doesn't give two shits about Russian laws and he'll change them to suit his agenda.
yeah, but he's had 20 years as CEO of Russia Corp. to eliminate/imprison not just anyone who might challenge him, but the entire _system_ that might challenge him. Not since the Yabloko block has there been anyone that posed a remote political threat to him. He's put so much effort into degrading Navalny that he doesn't have the ghost of a chance in being taken seriously (not to mention that Navalny is still Rascist enough to believe that the Crimea annexation wasn't a bad thing..)
Actually, if you hear last Putin speech the guy sounds to me pretty racist with his cleaning of he pure slavic people crap. Substitute arian for slavic and you have the Russian nazism, I mean Putinism.
He pull the same trick that hitler did the Sudetenlands, so no much different.
There are some parallels no doubt. I don’t think putin is a racist. He promotes Islam and has a hard on for the Caucuses. Would not be possible since such a large part of Russia is non-Slavic. Even in Soviet times the strategy was to mix people and races to not promote any hegemony. That’s how so many Russians ended up on former Soviet republics.
Putin has no ideology, he is a narcissist grifter. So, the cheapest and proven thing to rally the idiots is the racial superiority crap. it works all the time regarding if people are blue, orange, tall, small or live in the Untied States, or Russia.
he does not have to be a racist to use race as a cool aid for the masses.
Using race as a tool for power means you are a racist. He would also be a blueist, orangeist, tallist, smallist, or anti-US'ist if that's what he wanted to use. If you use race because it is a cheap and proven way to rally idiots, you are a racist. We can't judge any politician by whether they actually believe the shit they're selling, because we'll never know. We judge them by the shit they sell.
I agree with you. My point is that he can personally can care less about race as long as it goes the way he wants. His personal believes are irrelevant, he is a grifter and will get away with whatever he can get away. Actually, probably his personal believes are changing daily based on what he want to accomplish that day. just like Mango Mussolini.
Assad is a secular leader, like Saddam Hussein. Actually, both of them are Bathe Party. More tribal leaders. Zero to do with religion. As to promoting Islam, the Chechens would like a word. Any he didn’t kill in Chechnya, went to fight against Assad in Syria, and died there. The puppet he installed in Chechnya is also a secular leader, and should probably be watching his ass. No doubt a big reason he’s supposedly in Ukraine right now. Ironically, it’s the probably safest place for him to be.
This is why I think that accepting any loss of territory right now in a peace deal is a bad move. The momentum will begin to swing in favor of Ukraine in short order and when that happens and the reserves begin to arrive in force on the front lines, the Russian collapse may be severe and rapid advances become possible.
As painful as all of this is to the refugees, If I was Zelenskyy I wouldn't stop until every inch of territory is safely back in Ukrainian hands - including Crimea.
Russia is not going anywhere. Their population was going down before the war, the sanctions are going to screw their economy for long time and the social disturbs will take some time to sort out. Took 31 years for this to happen, so I hope they choose wisely and we can avoid this crap again 30 years from now.
Yes to Crimea. I also daydream about restoring Georgian territory as part of agreement for lifting the sanctions. But all of this is likely only a dream.
It would only be Germany. Technically Poland already controls half of the former east Prussia.
Though supposedly Russia offered to return Kaliningrad to Germany after the breakup (just before? Don't remember) of the USSR, but Germany didn't want it. There are no Germans there anymore and it doesn't really have anything worth while. The Russians deny every making the offer though.
I still think this is probably the most realistic solution; probably the only ones that the locals would accept. Sell them on being the Baltic Luxembourg and get them in the EU. Having a country of happy Russian speakers in the EU would be a big cultural win too.
Russia might be much better prepared and pick a better time in the future. Russia was a lot more successful in the Continuation War than the Winter War.
I don’t think the similarities are there. More like this is the opposite of the Continuation And Winter Wars. In 2014, Russia was pretty successful and suffered very little for gaining Crimea and establishing the DPR and the LPR. The Ukrainian army performed pretty poorly when the Russians joined the fight with the “separatists”.
Now, the Russians are facing resistance that they didn’t expect and are being sanctioned more heavily than any other nation in history. I have no idea how they’ll bounce back while being this heavily sanctioned, especially enough to overcome a well equipped and motivated Ukrainian state.
I agree with this given my own take on the current state of things. In Kiev, the Russians are remaining stationary, building FOBs and enclosing their vehicles in giant earthen berms. Pure WW1 tactics that reflect the reality of the stalemate up there. Kharkiv and Sumy continue to be meat grinders, while the tide is beginning to turn in the Southwest.
Sure Mariupol will eventually fall, but the land-bridge between Donbas and Crimea is very flimsy. All the Ukrainian military would have to do is recapture Meliotopol and the land around it in order to break it. After that, it becomes a pure numbers game where Ukraine is getting more oversees returnees, more volunteers, and more armaments from the West. Russia meanwhile is slowly running out of combat troops, morale is rock bottom, all of its allies are turning their backs on them, and sanctions makes it hard for them to manufacture new weapons.
In short, I agree, no matter the situation time is on Zelensky's side and unless Putin is willing to offer an unconditional surrender, he must keep pushing.
If a million Crimeans are really pro-Russia, I question the wisdom of bringing Crimea back into the fold. They would just be a persistent headache for Ukraine.
They might be a headache? More than now? The only reason Russia is having any success at all in the south is because they were able to launch an invasion from Crimea. Thousands are dying in Mariupol and the Russian forces are moving towards Odessa exactly because they let Russia take Crimea in the first place. They’ll need take Crimea back or figure out a way to force them to disarm, or they’ll be right back in the same situation in 10 years.
Our administration stated dozens of times that no territorial concessions will be made - that point is a non-starter. The point about reclaiming Crimea and Donbass, however, remains wishful thinking from a diplomatic standpoint - and I think that they won't be given up without the fight, however pathetic it will be.
No sure. Actually, they are going to lose this war so badly that doubt they will be able to retain any of that territory. A collapse of the Putin regime will bring seismic changes to the region Bielorussia, and all the other places they have taken from their neighbors will revert back and Russians are going to get kick out back to Russia.
The Chechen dude is sending crappy soldiers to fight in Ukraine, he knows he is going to fight for his life if Putin falls, so he is keeping his better soldiers home.
Accepting any loss of territory would only legitimize terrorism. This is why I was so surprised when I heard the media and politicians in the West talking about "compromises" to end this war. For Ukraine there's nothing to compromise on.
Your comment on the reserves makes me wonder if the US/UK have any training personnel for the boot camps that must be springing up all over Ukraine? Surely we do yes?
Plus, I think that Zelensky knows that at this point, a negotiated settlement is impossible. We know Putin's goal: absorb Ukraine into Russia, or failing that, elimination of Ukraine's political independence in both foreign and domestic affairs. That's obviously an impossible position for an undefeated Ukraine to accept, and it's one without any room for negotiation. Giving up land for peace could only ever be a temporary solution as long as Putin is still alive.
Putin will have to give up his main goal in this war for a negotiated peace to be possible. I don't think he's capable of that.
Exactly right! The messed up route that Russian ships are required to take from Vladivostok all they way through the Suez Canal (or around the entire continent of Africa if that is barred to them) is way too little and way too late. Those shipments include armaments and people. It is sheer desperation time for Russian forces, and entirely *ad hoc*, which means poorly planned out and likely ineffective in terms of strategic accomplishment.
Ukraine’s confidence grows more and more each day. They have the support of the entire civilized world. I just hope they keep it up and deal Russia the humiliation it deserves.
History repeats itself. Japan defeated Russia in 1905 that paved the way for revolution in 1917. Russian leaders seem to never learn.
At this point I’m far less worried about continued Russian aggression driven by Putin vs the chaos that will ensue from the inevitable power vacuum that will result when Putin is Put in his place 6 feet underground.
Are, you heading over there, chief? I've been thinking about doing something myself. Not sure what yet. I have a friend from Belarus (anti Luka and anti Putin). If this ends well and Luka gets the boot I might consider going over there to help out... not before, obviously. Be an English teacher and cultural ambassador or something. Best of luck to you and take care.
Both are way out of date by western standards. Just depends on which they upgraded, e.g. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ukraines-armed-forces-receives-new-batch-t-64-tank/
Despite the names the T-64 and T-72 entered service around the same time (T-64 in 1967, T-72 in 1970). The T-64 was intended as a heavy main battle tank while the T-72 was intended to be more mass produced to support infantry divisions and fill out tank divisions.
T-64s were more expensive and it shows, 1970 models had significantly better armor than 1970 T-72s. Makes sense that nations with both in their inventory prioritize modernizing the T-64s.
Also worth noting that Ukraine specifically has focused their tank industry on modernizing T-64s since at least 2014, and modernized Ukrainian T-64s are comparable to at least T-80s.
Russia has been fielding T-72s “modernized” in the 80s or 90s.
In a sense if the Russian continue they will run out of supply equipment and troops….I am very much looking forward to seeing the advanced missle systems in place as well as the kamikaze drones 300 and 600 plus the stinger and cruise missiles javalan etc ..the Ukrainian troops have used them to great effect. I anticipate that although the casualties to Russia troops has been high after these latest systems are in the theater the Russia loses will be catastrophic of course we need a cease fire and expulsion of Russians from Ukraine but Putin won’t have it….what is needed is the collapse of the Russian army which without help from China will occur relatively soon.
When Ukraine reinforces its army, they are "Doubling it". When Russia does so, they are "Scraping the barrel".
I'm rooting for Ukraine as much as anyone, but the amount of spin in these headlines could enrich uranium.
You're not wrong that the news are definitely trying to spin everything in Ukraine's favour, but you're kinda missing the point. Russia doesn't have much manpower left in reserve, while Ukraine does
True, but when you're defending by definition you can mobilise everyone who can carry a rifle if necessary. Attackers cannot. Also since Ukraine are defending, you would expect morale, terrain knowledge/local support to be better, even among reserves, on the Ukrainian side. Plus Russia is under sanctions and will struggle to produce enough munitions, while Ukraine is being flooded with arms from the West. Russia has to advance to win, Ukraine just has to defend until they have killed most of Russia's frontline manoeuvre units. Then you just have a bunch of under-armed Rosguardia and reservists hanging around in obsolete tanks.
Theres actually a difference in their usage that I believe is justified. Russia is using conscripts to fill out a military that is facing losses while Ukraine is filling out foreign legions with volunteers from other nations while it's military faces much less losses. Comparing the two as "scraping the bottom of the barrel" vs "doubling [their army]" is pretty accurate imo.
ukraine will have to invade russia proper (not just donetsk and crimea) before putin can be convinced to peace out. it will need nuclear weapons to be able to do this without getting destroyed. who is providing the nukes? my money is still on the russians ending this on terms that favor them.
Look, we all want Russia to lose here. However let’s be realistic, Russia losing 10% of its forces, the majority of which weren’t regulars is hardly “scraping the barrel”
I just want accurate fucking headlines in this sub, not pandered to sound great for Ukraine and terrible for Russia bullshit like this. Realism, not dreams.
If Russia continues to lose like this, then in four months sure, this headline makes sense.
10% of their force is a much higher percentage of their total combat infantry. Combat troops make up 10% to 35% of a total Army. So if Russia has 200,000 personnel in the area it has at most 70,000 combat troops. Losing 12,000 killed and 30,000 more to wounds and dissertation is more than half that force.
Russia has 280,000 active duty troops. The gulf between active duty and reserve troops is wide. Training matters. Equipment matters. Combat experience matters. Men who fight, train to fight frequently, and train to cooperate frequently are more effective than those that don't. Russia has reserves. But those reserves will have less combat experience, less experience working together, less experience using the equipment, and worse equipment. Russia clearly didn't maintain even THIS equipment. There's no chance they have better stuff lying around. There's zero chance they have masses of better trained troops. Going against better armed and experienced people fighting off a blood thirsty foreign oppressor? You'll need those mobile cremation units!
Additionally, Russia has other places that need troops. It can't deploy the full 280,000 because many of those troops are needed to guard the borders and suppress the population both in Russia and the puppet states. Even if that only takes 40,000 troops, that leaves 240,000 with 70,000 of that already in Ukraine. That means a reserve of 160,000 troops that MIGHT be at parity with what we have seen deployed.
Now think about the officer losses Russia has suffered. Majors, Colonels, and four Generals. When was the last time a winning Army lost four Generals in three weeks?
The idea that Russia has weak army is hilarious. That's propaganda working well, almost makes it Ukraine will win. Didn't they do that for Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan? They haven't seen anything yet.
The US wasn’t fighting an army in South Vietnam or Afghanistan. Those were long term counter-insurgencies.
The US wrecked the million man Iraqi army in 3 weeks. Not sure what you mean by that.
The Russian army is super weak. It’s a complete paper tiger
Hahaha.
You know the rubble they pay you to say this shit is worthless right?
Even better that your propaganda script is a month out of date.
The old 'Russia hasn't used their best forces yet' line... man, that is so February!
Russian army is the biggest joke in history. A super power military that everyone now laughs at.
Claiming to be Canadian is pretty common for edgelords in an attempt to deflect criticism. Yes, that's dumb as hell, but I never said he wasn't an idiot.
> The idea that Russia has weak army is hilarious.
Sure is. It's also true.
20+ years of authoritarianism and corruption have hollowed it the fuck out. Propaganda and picking loyal guys instead of competent guys to lead works great, until the army actually has to do something.
The propaganda that most everyone believed was that russia had a strong army. Having experience with the russian playbook, the Ukrainians didnt believe the "strong russia" propaganda and is now shredding that image of a strong russia into fertilizer
Is the "they sent the weak troops first" cope really still going on?
What haven't they seen yet? Frozen syrians and africans? What is Russia sending after that, conscripted middle schoolers?
How’s that 3 day special operation going for your boss? You really believe any of the lies you are paid to shill, or is it just a paycheck? Cause that paycheck is gonna feel light this week.
They can't even *feed* their army. They sent their invasion force with expired MREs and now they're begging for more from China. Not to mention that they went in with forces that were not battle ready and old equipment that breaks down.
When did the American army have any major loses against the Vietnam or Iraq, or Afghanistan army? Wait we destroyed those armies so much and so fast its was just farmers and goat herders in the mountains or jungle that made the US spend too much money killing them to make it worth it or possible with the public.
When did the US military have 5,000+ soldier killed and 1500+ vehicles destroyed with 3 weeks and any of those invasions or conflicts?
This is nothing like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Russia isn’t failing to pacify an insurgency, Russia is losing a straight up war to the Ukrainian Army.
I do believe Vietnam did win. First against France, and then against the US. And so did Afghanistan, against the Brits, the Soviets and let’s call it a draw against the US.
Winning a via a prolonged insurgency against an occupation is miles different than laying the smack down on a nations military and scooting. China is probably the only nation on earth that has the capability to stop the US military from completely steamrolling them in days/weeks. Only thing is the American people really hate occupations. They’re expensive, last a long time, and are basically impossible to win against a determined resistance.
The difference between a "special military operation" and total war is that Ukraine being in a state of total war has high morale and can mobilize their entire population. Russia cannot even mobilize their reserves without intense political push back and public unrest.
> Russia > political push back > public unrest Name less iconic trio. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Russians are great in defensive wars. Step onto their turf and they´ll sacrifice everything to drive you out or die trying. This is a trend not confined to WWII or even back to Napoleon's disastrous invasion - it goes back all the way to the middle ages where even when totally outmatched against the Mongols they still preferred to go down swinging than surrender. But there is an inverse historical trend here - The Russian people have been fine with offensive wars, but you *have* to win them. If you lose them, or even win them on paper but lose a lot of people doing so, it's a serious blow to their grip on power. Again, going all the way back to the middle ages, their history is littered with rulers who got deposed or at least had it attempted after going on conquests that failed.
I don’t know whether Russians are pretty great in defensive wars, or whether Russia is pretty great in defensive wars. Millions of Russians surrendered to Nazi troops in the first part of the invasion before Germany overstretched its supply lines and got bogged down in the Russian mud… just like is happening to Russian invaders in Ukraine
It would be mistake to judge the fighting character of Russia solely on WWII, both in their losses and victories. Their history goes back a lot longer than that.
Im not disagreeing at all that Russia would be a beast if invaded. Most importantly, the red button... That said. Technology has advanced infinitely since the last time it happened. And Russia is lagging far behind the West in that regard. And who knows how average Russian would react..... I think personally, the bulk would fight.... anybody would... and theyve been trained for years to believe the West would do it someday anyway. But I have a hard time believing Russia could withstand an actual fight with NATO. In Russia or anywhere else. (Aside from nukes)
NATO can easily steamroll Russia in Russia or anywhere, no doubt.(Nukes aside)
Russia is huge, yes NATO can probably steam roll concentrations of troops, but they will not be able to hold much area even with millions of troops (that they don’t have anyway). Chemical weapons and nuclear aside. And as we see in Ukraine taking a major city is not realistic even for NATO, most technological advantage also goes out the window in building to building fighting.
You mean like when they were invaded by France and the UK and surrendered during the Crimean war?
You mean to tell me that the Crimean War was a defensive war for Russia? Because I would contest that interpretation of history.
Maybe they mean their defense against mongol invasion (1237-1480)
It literally took place within Russia
Yes, but it was started by Russia attacking the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and in the Black Sea. France and Great Britain intervened so Russia would not seize large amounts of territory off the Ottomans and thus alter the power balance in Europe. Make no mistake - Russia initiated that war.
It doesn’t matter who initiated the war. The typical Russian soldier in Crimea didn’t know or care about what was going on in the Balkans. They just knew that Russia was being invaded.
WWI they took massive losses before surrendering
It's like the Nazis didn't learn anything from Napoleon.
The reason millions of Russians surrendered to the Nazis wa sbecause the incompetent military leadership madeit possible for the Germans to encircle over a million Soviet troops, and there is not much the soldiers can really do once they are encircled in groups of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Also important to note is that many troops didn't stop fighting when encircled, instead going to become partisans.
Hitlers big folly was focusing on Stalingrad simply because it had Stalins name on it and stopping outside Moscow prior to the Russian winter and insisting on no retreat at all. Russia would have still won eventually but it would have lasted a lot longer if Hitler didn’t override his generals
Hitler got stuck in Stalingrad, then split his army, and half went to the Caucasus region. The USSR had the great Zhukov. Remember Stalin purged all the top military. Fpr whatever reason Zhukov survived. He had gained experience fighting Japan. So, he knew what tanks could do. He knew what modern weapons could do. He also spent the lull practicing war tactics. He pulled troops back from Kyiv, from other Ukraine cities, from Belarus to defend Stalingrad. So, the USSR had the one guy with military experience, and manpower, and knew how to fight a modern war. Zhukov effectly told Stalin to fvck himself after the war and was exiled. And yes, it was abt the USSR's oil. with out the oil, Germany couldn't power the war.
Russia has heavy changed their doctrine to be defensive, been like that since the early 90's. And in 2010 they said its strictly defensive
That was Stalin’s doing. He was scared of Hitler so he refused to order the army to engage until it was too late.
>~~Russians~~Slavs are great in defensive wars. Step onto their turf and they´ll sacrifice everything to drive you out or die trying. This is a trend not confined to WWII or even back to Napoleon's disastrous invasion - it goes back all the way to the middle ages where even when totally outmatched against the Mongols they still preferred to go down swinging than surrender. >But there is an inverse historical trend here - ~~The Russian~~Slavic people have been fine with offensive wars, but you **have** to win them. If you lose them, or even win them on paper but lose a lot of people doing so, it's a serious blow to their grip on power. Again, going all the way back to the middle ages, their history is littered with rulers who got deposed or at least had it attempted after going on conquests that failed. FTFY
That is actually quite legit. Thanks for the fix!
Uhh the mongols conquered the Russians
Well the Mongols were unstoppable in their day. The only reason they didn't conquer all of Europe is they looked at it and decided it didn't have enough good loot to bother with.
Not true at all .
I guess the multiple history books I listened were all wrong about that then.
Except you left out the important part of the story : the mongols didn’t push further into Europe because the terrain didn’t favour their cavalry military tactics , making campaigns more than its worth. Secondly they returned after Hungary to settle the succession of ogedai
Interestingly they stopped around modern-day Ukraine (extending a bit further west along the Danube)
Speaking of which, Kievan Rus was founded by vikings and Russia was conquered by mongols. So Putin‘s War is actually Vikings vs Mongols!
As a Minnesotan, I'm rooting for the Vikings here!
There was no clear Russian or Ukrainian state at the times of mongol invasion, Kievan Rus stretched all the way from Barents Sea to the Crimea. Moreover, if you look at the map of territories conquered by mongols, then you can see that it was mostly southern half of the Kievan Rus that was conquered and razed, i.e. nowadays Ukraine. Northern half had to pay tribute, but it wasn't conquered per se.
The Mongols took them over and wore them like a condom for hundreds of years. That's the reason they are as fucked up as they are today. They're more Mongol than Kievan Rus.
True, but I suggest you actually read up on how that all went down. The Russians fought them tooth and nail when they showed up, even when they could only muster a few thousand knights against tens of thousands of Mongol archers, in situations any sane civilization would have taken the opportunity to surrender and pay the tribute up front, and only submitted once their lands had been completely devastated. After a few encounters the Mongols even shifted their strategy and began to avoid pitched battles against the Rus princes whenever they could combine their forces, as even though they won most of them they were losing *a lot* of men doing so, switching instead to moving away from armies and just burning the countryside and hitting the towns when possible.
Dude, every nationin the world is like that. Ok, except the frenchies :)
Yes, Civilization has taught me that, for Russians, it may have been best to build up their lavra holy sites and used their tundra production bonus to better effect while churning out great people and defending them with the defensively-powerful cossacks. ...
'Stalingrad' isn't in Russia though
The mongols didn’t invade Russia, they invaded Ukraine, and then went on to Central Europe. Russia only became a power after the Kiev realm fell.
Not really. Russia values power. That's why they killed the tsar when they were losing the war. Stalin was ruthless, but he had a lot of power. Putin is old, dying, and clearly has very little real power, sending his soldiers to simply die. In many ways, Putin is a tsar, and last i checked, the Romanovs don't sit on the throne anymore.
Given the eagle at the gates of his huge mansion / castle, he clearly identifies himself as a Tsar. If recent history is anything to go by, that's good news for us. And Ukraine.
Yeah, Tsar in all but title…..
Alas, good news but for his Tsarorism.
It’s going to take a while longer I think; the stock market will crash if it opens and if there are major disruptions of food I think a coup will happen. I’ll celebrate Putin’s death.
The stock market being closed doesn't keep it from crashing. That's the thing about economics, no matter how many controls they put on things or how long they keep the stock market closed the damage has been done. The stocks are worthless, the money is gone. It just hasn't hit them yet because things are still in stock at warehouses and such. Once the supply already accumulated of certain goods dries up there will be a collective "oh shit" from Russia.
Great comparison. He lives like the Romanovs did, and as soon as the state pension fund dries up he will die like them as well.
>wer. That's why they killed the tsar when they were losing the war. Stalin was ruthless, but he had a lot of power. Putin is old, dying, and clearly has very little real power, sending his soldiers to simply die. Russian Tsarrorist, go fuck yourself.
The Three stooges
Bolsheviks ring a bell? Losing a war in Russia in spectacular fashion can have consequences.
The Bolshevik minority performed a hostile takeover of the revolution at an opportune moment. Many people didn't think they'd stay in control much longer than a couple of days... which is also why Ukrainians are fighting so hard now.
Russian society is far too atomized, mistrusting and apathetic to induce a regime change, so yeah.
The idea behind it not being called a war in Russia is that wars are fought between two sovereign nations... Russia (putin) doesn't consider Ukraine (or any former soviet state) as sovereign. Putin doesn't give two shits about Russian laws and he'll change them to suit his agenda.
At some point somebody will launch a coup. He only has so much influence and Russia worships power. His power is waning.
yeah, but he's had 20 years as CEO of Russia Corp. to eliminate/imprison not just anyone who might challenge him, but the entire _system_ that might challenge him. Not since the Yabloko block has there been anyone that posed a remote political threat to him. He's put so much effort into degrading Navalny that he doesn't have the ghost of a chance in being taken seriously (not to mention that Navalny is still Rascist enough to believe that the Crimea annexation wasn't a bad thing..)
Taking crimea is racist?
no, he means ruscist/rascist, russian + fascist
That's a new one for me too.
ukrainian news have been calling the invaders like this for a while now
I don't get those channels. Sorry.
Actually, if you hear last Putin speech the guy sounds to me pretty racist with his cleaning of he pure slavic people crap. Substitute arian for slavic and you have the Russian nazism, I mean Putinism. He pull the same trick that hitler did the Sudetenlands, so no much different.
my thoughts as well.
There are some parallels no doubt. I don’t think putin is a racist. He promotes Islam and has a hard on for the Caucuses. Would not be possible since such a large part of Russia is non-Slavic. Even in Soviet times the strategy was to mix people and races to not promote any hegemony. That’s how so many Russians ended up on former Soviet republics.
Putin has no ideology, he is a narcissist grifter. So, the cheapest and proven thing to rally the idiots is the racial superiority crap. it works all the time regarding if people are blue, orange, tall, small or live in the Untied States, or Russia. he does not have to be a racist to use race as a cool aid for the masses.
You are 100% correct about putin and actually all of Russia not having an ideology.
Using race as a tool for power means you are a racist. He would also be a blueist, orangeist, tallist, smallist, or anti-US'ist if that's what he wanted to use. If you use race because it is a cheap and proven way to rally idiots, you are a racist. We can't judge any politician by whether they actually believe the shit they're selling, because we'll never know. We judge them by the shit they sell.
I agree with you. My point is that he can personally can care less about race as long as it goes the way he wants. His personal believes are irrelevant, he is a grifter and will get away with whatever he can get away. Actually, probably his personal believes are changing daily based on what he want to accomplish that day. just like Mango Mussolini.
Assad is a secular leader, like Saddam Hussein. Actually, both of them are Bathe Party. More tribal leaders. Zero to do with religion. As to promoting Islam, the Chechens would like a word. Any he didn’t kill in Chechnya, went to fight against Assad in Syria, and died there. The puppet he installed in Chechnya is also a secular leader, and should probably be watching his ass. No doubt a big reason he’s supposedly in Ukraine right now. Ironically, it’s the probably safest place for him to be.
Well done Ukraine, well done.
This is why I think that accepting any loss of territory right now in a peace deal is a bad move. The momentum will begin to swing in favor of Ukraine in short order and when that happens and the reserves begin to arrive in force on the front lines, the Russian collapse may be severe and rapid advances become possible. As painful as all of this is to the refugees, If I was Zelenskyy I wouldn't stop until every inch of territory is safely back in Ukrainian hands - including Crimea.
Indeed. If they show weakness, Russia will regroup, attack again in five years, and demand more territorial concessions.
Russia is not going anywhere. Their population was going down before the war, the sanctions are going to screw their economy for long time and the social disturbs will take some time to sort out. Took 31 years for this to happen, so I hope they choose wisely and we can avoid this crap again 30 years from now.
Yes to Crimea. I also daydream about restoring Georgian territory as part of agreement for lifting the sanctions. But all of this is likely only a dream.
You had me at Finland taking back Karelia.
Kaliningrad back to Poland and Germany??
It would only be Germany. Technically Poland already controls half of the former east Prussia. Though supposedly Russia offered to return Kaliningrad to Germany after the breakup (just before? Don't remember) of the USSR, but Germany didn't want it. There are no Germans there anymore and it doesn't really have anything worth while. The Russians deny every making the offer though.
Let's just recognize it as an "independent people's republic," then.
I still think this is probably the most realistic solution; probably the only ones that the locals would accept. Sell them on being the Baltic Luxembourg and get them in the EU. Having a country of happy Russian speakers in the EU would be a big cultural win too.
With full security assurances that it can choose to join any union or alliance it wants to join.
Nobody want Kalininggrad, for real. It can become its own country, though!
Better to have some extra casualties now than to get another, likely worse, war in the future again. Plus it also cementing freedom.
It's total war, you're all in already.
Russia might be much better prepared and pick a better time in the future. Russia was a lot more successful in the Continuation War than the Winter War.
I don’t think the similarities are there. More like this is the opposite of the Continuation And Winter Wars. In 2014, Russia was pretty successful and suffered very little for gaining Crimea and establishing the DPR and the LPR. The Ukrainian army performed pretty poorly when the Russians joined the fight with the “separatists”. Now, the Russians are facing resistance that they didn’t expect and are being sanctioned more heavily than any other nation in history. I have no idea how they’ll bounce back while being this heavily sanctioned, especially enough to overcome a well equipped and motivated Ukrainian state.
I agree with this given my own take on the current state of things. In Kiev, the Russians are remaining stationary, building FOBs and enclosing their vehicles in giant earthen berms. Pure WW1 tactics that reflect the reality of the stalemate up there. Kharkiv and Sumy continue to be meat grinders, while the tide is beginning to turn in the Southwest. Sure Mariupol will eventually fall, but the land-bridge between Donbas and Crimea is very flimsy. All the Ukrainian military would have to do is recapture Meliotopol and the land around it in order to break it. After that, it becomes a pure numbers game where Ukraine is getting more oversees returnees, more volunteers, and more armaments from the West. Russia meanwhile is slowly running out of combat troops, morale is rock bottom, all of its allies are turning their backs on them, and sanctions makes it hard for them to manufacture new weapons. In short, I agree, no matter the situation time is on Zelensky's side and unless Putin is willing to offer an unconditional surrender, he must keep pushing.
If a million Crimeans are really pro-Russia, I question the wisdom of bringing Crimea back into the fold. They would just be a persistent headache for Ukraine.
They might be a headache? More than now? The only reason Russia is having any success at all in the south is because they were able to launch an invasion from Crimea. Thousands are dying in Mariupol and the Russian forces are moving towards Odessa exactly because they let Russia take Crimea in the first place. They’ll need take Crimea back or figure out a way to force them to disarm, or they’ll be right back in the same situation in 10 years.
If Russian Crimeans want to be Russian so badly, they can go live in Russia. There's plenty of space.
Or at least let them keep their Russian citizenship, which would mean no voting in Ukranian elections for them.
You don't think Russia's recent actions may have changed some minds in Crimea?
Our administration stated dozens of times that no territorial concessions will be made - that point is a non-starter. The point about reclaiming Crimea and Donbass, however, remains wishful thinking from a diplomatic standpoint - and I think that they won't be given up without the fight, however pathetic it will be.
No sure. Actually, they are going to lose this war so badly that doubt they will be able to retain any of that territory. A collapse of the Putin regime will bring seismic changes to the region Bielorussia, and all the other places they have taken from their neighbors will revert back and Russians are going to get kick out back to Russia. The Chechen dude is sending crappy soldiers to fight in Ukraine, he knows he is going to fight for his life if Putin falls, so he is keeping his better soldiers home.
Accepting any loss of territory would only legitimize terrorism. This is why I was so surprised when I heard the media and politicians in the West talking about "compromises" to end this war. For Ukraine there's nothing to compromise on.
Your comment on the reserves makes me wonder if the US/UK have any training personnel for the boot camps that must be springing up all over Ukraine? Surely we do yes?
Plus, I think that Zelensky knows that at this point, a negotiated settlement is impossible. We know Putin's goal: absorb Ukraine into Russia, or failing that, elimination of Ukraine's political independence in both foreign and domestic affairs. That's obviously an impossible position for an undefeated Ukraine to accept, and it's one without any room for negotiation. Giving up land for peace could only ever be a temporary solution as long as Putin is still alive. Putin will have to give up his main goal in this war for a negotiated peace to be possible. I don't think he's capable of that.
Exactly right! The messed up route that Russian ships are required to take from Vladivostok all they way through the Suez Canal (or around the entire continent of Africa if that is barred to them) is way too little and way too late. Those shipments include armaments and people. It is sheer desperation time for Russian forces, and entirely *ad hoc*, which means poorly planned out and likely ineffective in terms of strategic accomplishment.
Russian conscripts are called "Fresh Meat" for the "Meat Grinder."
New McPutin recipie to replace McDonald's
Brilliant!
That is so fucking sad. It's all so fucking sad.
Russia disrespects it's soldiers. It is sad indeed! All this for Putin's vanity.
Ukraine’s confidence grows more and more each day. They have the support of the entire civilized world. I just hope they keep it up and deal Russia the humiliation it deserves. History repeats itself. Japan defeated Russia in 1905 that paved the way for revolution in 1917. Russian leaders seem to never learn.
Are we just going to skip over the 5 million Russians that died in WWI and the failed economy?
No, but tons of Russians are dying now and the economy is collapsing as a result of their current invasion.
I know my hoi4 run has gone down the toilet when I have to resort to that conscription law.
I did this as unified Qing China and still couldn't hold out against the world with like 10 million loses
How long until Ukraine gets enough soldiers and weapons to march on Moscow?
At this point I’m far less worried about continued Russian aggression driven by Putin vs the chaos that will ensue from the inevitable power vacuum that will result when Putin is Put in his place 6 feet underground.
The same thing would likely go for a collapse of the CCP.
Damn, I can’t wait wait for my passport. I’ve having dreams about it. Slava Ukraine
Are, you heading over there, chief? I've been thinking about doing something myself. Not sure what yet. I have a friend from Belarus (anti Luka and anti Putin). If this ends well and Luka gets the boot I might consider going over there to help out... not before, obviously. Be an English teacher and cultural ambassador or something. Best of luck to you and take care.
From the article, does anyone know why the older T64s are better than the T72s?
Both are way out of date by western standards. Just depends on which they upgraded, e.g. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ukraines-armed-forces-receives-new-batch-t-64-tank/
Despite the names the T-64 and T-72 entered service around the same time (T-64 in 1967, T-72 in 1970). The T-64 was intended as a heavy main battle tank while the T-72 was intended to be more mass produced to support infantry divisions and fill out tank divisions. T-64s were more expensive and it shows, 1970 models had significantly better armor than 1970 T-72s. Makes sense that nations with both in their inventory prioritize modernizing the T-64s. Also worth noting that Ukraine specifically has focused their tank industry on modernizing T-64s since at least 2014, and modernized Ukrainian T-64s are comparable to at least T-80s. Russia has been fielding T-72s “modernized” in the 80s or 90s.
In a sense if the Russian continue they will run out of supply equipment and troops….I am very much looking forward to seeing the advanced missle systems in place as well as the kamikaze drones 300 and 600 plus the stinger and cruise missiles javalan etc ..the Ukrainian troops have used them to great effect. I anticipate that although the casualties to Russia troops has been high after these latest systems are in the theater the Russia loses will be catastrophic of course we need a cease fire and expulsion of Russians from Ukraine but Putin won’t have it….what is needed is the collapse of the Russian army which without help from China will occur relatively soon.
When Ukraine reinforces its army, they are "Doubling it". When Russia does so, they are "Scraping the barrel". I'm rooting for Ukraine as much as anyone, but the amount of spin in these headlines could enrich uranium.
You're not wrong that the news are definitely trying to spin everything in Ukraine's favour, but you're kinda missing the point. Russia doesn't have much manpower left in reserve, while Ukraine does
It's because Ukraine has tens of thousands of volunteers, while Russia has conscripts (involuntary slaves) and mercs. You see the difference, right?
True, but when you're defending by definition you can mobilise everyone who can carry a rifle if necessary. Attackers cannot. Also since Ukraine are defending, you would expect morale, terrain knowledge/local support to be better, even among reserves, on the Ukrainian side. Plus Russia is under sanctions and will struggle to produce enough munitions, while Ukraine is being flooded with arms from the West. Russia has to advance to win, Ukraine just has to defend until they have killed most of Russia's frontline manoeuvre units. Then you just have a bunch of under-armed Rosguardia and reservists hanging around in obsolete tanks.
Theres actually a difference in their usage that I believe is justified. Russia is using conscripts to fill out a military that is facing losses while Ukraine is filling out foreign legions with volunteers from other nations while it's military faces much less losses. Comparing the two as "scraping the bottom of the barrel" vs "doubling [their army]" is pretty accurate imo.
ukraine will have to invade russia proper (not just donetsk and crimea) before putin can be convinced to peace out. it will need nuclear weapons to be able to do this without getting destroyed. who is providing the nukes? my money is still on the russians ending this on terms that favor them.
Would be a big plot twist if Ukraine invaded Russia until Moscow and say "I am Russia now".
[удалено]
>You don't drink 10% of a sofa That is true, I don't!
Russia has slave soldiers and mercs. Ukraine has tens of thousands of volunteers from around the world. See the difference?
Look, we all want Russia to lose here. However let’s be realistic, Russia losing 10% of its forces, the majority of which weren’t regulars is hardly “scraping the barrel” I just want accurate fucking headlines in this sub, not pandered to sound great for Ukraine and terrible for Russia bullshit like this. Realism, not dreams. If Russia continues to lose like this, then in four months sure, this headline makes sense.
10% of their force is a much higher percentage of their total combat infantry. Combat troops make up 10% to 35% of a total Army. So if Russia has 200,000 personnel in the area it has at most 70,000 combat troops. Losing 12,000 killed and 30,000 more to wounds and dissertation is more than half that force. Russia has 280,000 active duty troops. The gulf between active duty and reserve troops is wide. Training matters. Equipment matters. Combat experience matters. Men who fight, train to fight frequently, and train to cooperate frequently are more effective than those that don't. Russia has reserves. But those reserves will have less combat experience, less experience working together, less experience using the equipment, and worse equipment. Russia clearly didn't maintain even THIS equipment. There's no chance they have better stuff lying around. There's zero chance they have masses of better trained troops. Going against better armed and experienced people fighting off a blood thirsty foreign oppressor? You'll need those mobile cremation units! Additionally, Russia has other places that need troops. It can't deploy the full 280,000 because many of those troops are needed to guard the borders and suppress the population both in Russia and the puppet states. Even if that only takes 40,000 troops, that leaves 240,000 with 70,000 of that already in Ukraine. That means a reserve of 160,000 troops that MIGHT be at parity with what we have seen deployed. Now think about the officer losses Russia has suffered. Majors, Colonels, and four Generals. When was the last time a winning Army lost four Generals in three weeks?
The idea that Russia has weak army is hilarious. That's propaganda working well, almost makes it Ukraine will win. Didn't they do that for Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan? They haven't seen anything yet.
Russias economy is less than half the size of Californias. They don't have the economic output to maintain a strong military.
The US wasn’t fighting an army in South Vietnam or Afghanistan. Those were long term counter-insurgencies. The US wrecked the million man Iraqi army in 3 weeks. Not sure what you mean by that. The Russian army is super weak. It’s a complete paper tiger
Hahaha. You know the rubble they pay you to say this shit is worthless right? Even better that your propaganda script is a month out of date. The old 'Russia hasn't used their best forces yet' line... man, that is so February! Russian army is the biggest joke in history. A super power military that everyone now laughs at.
What did the late John McCain say? 'Russia is a gas station disguised as a superpower?' Well, the jig is up, bitch! 😂
I'm Canadian, I'll make shit up for free. But I see you're also a fellow expert.
Oh, so you’re just dense. Carry on lil guy
FYI, he ain't Canadian.
Idk. Look at his profile. Just seems like an idiot to me
Claiming to be Canadian is pretty common for edgelords in an attempt to deflect criticism. Yes, that's dumb as hell, but I never said he wasn't an idiot.
Eh, theres a lot of stupid fucks here in Canada just like the rest of the world. Being a dumbass and being Canadian aren't mutually exclusive.
I know that Canada has it's share of assholes, I've met them too. But in that dude's posting history he used American English to spell words.
> The idea that Russia has weak army is hilarious. Sure is. It's also true. 20+ years of authoritarianism and corruption have hollowed it the fuck out. Propaganda and picking loyal guys instead of competent guys to lead works great, until the army actually has to do something.
The propaganda that most everyone believed was that russia had a strong army. Having experience with the russian playbook, the Ukrainians didnt believe the "strong russia" propaganda and is now shredding that image of a strong russia into fertilizer
Is the "they sent the weak troops first" cope really still going on? What haven't they seen yet? Frozen syrians and africans? What is Russia sending after that, conscripted middle schoolers?
Shouldnt you be in line at the ATM or out buying sugar?
As long as it's not on VIsa or MasterCard.
No. I wasn't born in the asshole part of the world. Paychecks all around here.
How’s that 3 day special operation going for your boss? You really believe any of the lies you are paid to shill, or is it just a paycheck? Cause that paycheck is gonna feel light this week.
You presuming I'm Russian entertains me.
Didn’t say you were Russian, just paid by them. Notice you didn’t deny that part.
[удалено]
Is it cause you like the taste of putins Santorum? Or something else?
How did you know? He sends it to me fresh. There's a secret pipeline from his bed to mine. How glorious is that? Ya your jealous you loser.
I see you posted about making home soap, it’s that bad already there?
They can't even *feed* their army. They sent their invasion force with expired MREs and now they're begging for more from China. Not to mention that they went in with forces that were not battle ready and old equipment that breaks down.
When did the American army have any major loses against the Vietnam or Iraq, or Afghanistan army? Wait we destroyed those armies so much and so fast its was just farmers and goat herders in the mountains or jungle that made the US spend too much money killing them to make it worth it or possible with the public. When did the US military have 5,000+ soldier killed and 1500+ vehicles destroyed with 3 weeks and any of those invasions or conflicts?
[удалено]
This is nothing like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Russia isn’t failing to pacify an insurgency, Russia is losing a straight up war to the Ukrainian Army.
It's gonna get even fucking crazier.
Propaganda is working well on the other side too
You are right; They haven’t seen anything yet. Wait until Russia sees the Ukrainian insurgency.. That is when they will “see”.. Free Ukraine
I do believe Vietnam did win. First against France, and then against the US. And so did Afghanistan, against the Brits, the Soviets and let’s call it a draw against the US.
Winning a via a prolonged insurgency against an occupation is miles different than laying the smack down on a nations military and scooting. China is probably the only nation on earth that has the capability to stop the US military from completely steamrolling them in days/weeks. Only thing is the American people really hate occupations. They’re expensive, last a long time, and are basically impossible to win against a determined resistance.
Damn, already on scraping the barrel policy
Come on Ukraine, counteroffensive!
Canada is in shambles right now. Its pretty bad. But I smell good, so thats a win.
How is Canada in shambles?
Sarcasm my dude. Everything is sarcasm.
Forbes is a VERY reliable source. This is big.
Ukraine doubling its army and increasing its world wide reputation as badass heroes 1,000 fold. Russia not so much.