Well, they keep trying to imagine that Russia is deploying it’s full military force against Ukraine, denying that it’s a limited SMO. They use the deployment of aging equipment as evidence that Russia is using everything they have and running out instead of as evidence that Russia is still able to meet it’s objectives with a limited use of its worst equipment.
Absolutely, the whole narrative is built on the idea that Russia is falling apart and can barely keep things together. People internalized it over the past two years, and just regurgitate these tropes now. What’s striking to me is how fluidly they’re able to abandon narratives that have run their course without any reflection.
First, Russian economy was supposed to collapse within weeks. Then Russia was supposed to run out of shell, missiles, and manpower so the military conflict was going to be over quickly. Obviously none of these things actually happened, yet nobody asked why all these projections were wrong and what the implications of that are.
We still see libs dismiss any articles admitting the reality as Russian propaganda, even when these articles come from rabidly pro Ukrainian mainstream media in the west.
The sheer capacity people have for denying reality is really incredible.
Exactly, they imagined that Russia worked more or less the way the west does which led to a monumental miscalculation in policy. This war will be taught in history books as the catalyst for the collapse of the burger empire.
I don’t think they’re using inferior equipment, but they couldn’t really go all-out in the beginning without killing a huge number of civilians (unlike NATO, which jumps straight to carpet bombing)
The one thing that people on both sides agree with is that Russia wants to control the economy of Ukraine. Destroying the infrastructure and people of ukraine excessively undermines that millitary objective. Unless you believe that he’s evil and just wants to do bad things.
The same way the US benefits from getting rid of old equipment, which y’all chucklefucks been celebrating as grand strategy. But more importantly, it’s because they don’t need to deploy nor reveal their main forces. It keeps their enemies intelligence unreliable and it keeps their forces ready for further conflict from the bloodthirsty deranged barbarians in the US.
Nobody ever wants a long, protracted conflict but it doesn’t mean they don’t prepare for one.
They don’t go all out because:
The effective number of a weapon is not the raw number but the amount multiplied by the availability rate.
Mature platforms have higher availability rates and a larger stockpile of wear parts and ammo.
The numbers available can sustain attrition for however long the conflict may endure so they don’t run out of crucial weapons system at inopportune times.
The latest equipment may still be undergoing service tests or may have a limited amount of trained crews so any deployment would be more like what Zebra mission was to the M26 Pershing.
Combat capable forces are still needed elsewhere for security/deterrence and in case South Ossetia gets invaded by Georgia again.
Mobilizing the reserves would shrink the working population hurting the economy.
Going all out might also cause a full on intervention since NATO membership isn’t actually needed for that to happen. SMO like rules are why the US in Vietnam didn’t clash with China as it did in Korea.
Availability rates of the F-15 vs F-35 vs F-22
In spite of how much older the F-15 air frames are, given the same number of planes the F-15s would in combat outnumber the F-35s or F-22s two to one.
Well, they keep trying to imagine that Russia is deploying it’s full military force against Ukraine, denying that it’s a limited SMO. They use the deployment of aging equipment as evidence that Russia is using everything they have and running out instead of as evidence that Russia is still able to meet it’s objectives with a limited use of its worst equipment.
Absolutely, the whole narrative is built on the idea that Russia is falling apart and can barely keep things together. People internalized it over the past two years, and just regurgitate these tropes now. What’s striking to me is how fluidly they’re able to abandon narratives that have run their course without any reflection.
First, Russian economy was supposed to collapse within weeks. Then Russia was supposed to run out of shell, missiles, and manpower so the military conflict was going to be over quickly. Obviously none of these things actually happened, yet nobody asked why all these projections were wrong and what the implications of that are.
We still see libs dismiss any articles admitting the reality as Russian propaganda, even when these articles come from rabidly pro Ukrainian mainstream media in the west.
The sheer capacity people have for denying reality is really incredible.
deleted by creator
Exactly, they imagined that Russia worked more or less the way the west does which led to a monumental miscalculation in policy. This war will be taught in history books as the catalyst for the collapse of the burger empire.
how does russia benefit from deliberately using inferior equipment and not going all out? they don’t want a long, protracted conflict.
I don’t think they’re using inferior equipment, but they couldn’t really go all-out in the beginning without killing a huge number of civilians (unlike NATO, which jumps straight to carpet bombing)
The one thing that people on both sides agree with is that Russia wants to control the economy of Ukraine. Destroying the infrastructure and people of ukraine excessively undermines that millitary objective. Unless you believe that he’s evil and just wants to do bad things.
The same way the US benefits from getting rid of old equipment, which y’all chucklefucks been celebrating as grand strategy. But more importantly, it’s because they don’t need to deploy nor reveal their main forces. It keeps their enemies intelligence unreliable and it keeps their forces ready for further conflict from the bloodthirsty deranged barbarians in the US.
Nobody ever wants a long, protracted conflict but it doesn’t mean they don’t prepare for one.
They don’t go all out because:
The effective number of a weapon is not the raw number but the amount multiplied by the availability rate.
Mature platforms have higher availability rates and a larger stockpile of wear parts and ammo.
The numbers available can sustain attrition for however long the conflict may endure so they don’t run out of crucial weapons system at inopportune times.
The latest equipment may still be undergoing service tests or may have a limited amount of trained crews so any deployment would be more like what Zebra mission was to the M26 Pershing.
Combat capable forces are still needed elsewhere for security/deterrence and in case South Ossetia gets invaded by Georgia again.
Mobilizing the reserves would shrink the working population hurting the economy.
Going all out might also cause a full on intervention since NATO membership isn’t actually needed for that to happen. SMO like rules are why the US in Vietnam didn’t clash with China as it did in Korea.
Availability rates of the F-15 vs F-35 vs F-22
In spite of how much older the F-15 air frames are, given the same number of planes the F-15s would in combat outnumber the F-35s or F-22s two to one.