Amnesty International early on reported that Ukraine was fighting the war in such a way as to place civilians at risk. Ukraine whined about the report and Amnesty International apologized for having brought it up.
The HiMARS has seemingly been extremely effective in this war. It successfully diminished Russia’s artillery capabilities by targeting their massive ammo dumps. Ukraine started out with less than ten systems and now only have 16. (Poland is buying hundreds of systems). What other armament once introduced into a battle had such a impact? Maybe the stinger in the Afghanistan-Russia war?
I see the next Russian leader as being interested in re-starting the Russian economy and bringing back all of the intelligent and talented people who left Russia during Putin's adventure. Hopefully, the new leader will be wiser for having seen the failures of Putin's war-mongering, and will look to avoid future wars. He should recognize that warfare has changed a lot since Russia was last any good at it. To have a successful economy, he needs to earn the respect of the international community. Only then will Russian oil flow once again to higher-paying customers in Europe and begin funding the other industries in Russia. If any desire for revenge burns within Russia's new leader, he would be wise to put out that fire and focus on economic competition. We probably shouldn't expect another Gorbachev, but that would be the most positive possibility.
HIMARS are game-changers. They’ve punched repairable holes in a bridge Russia doesn’t need. They’ve destroyed at least a couple of Russia’s hundreds of ammo dumps and reportedly have killed 53 of Ukraine’s own prisoners of war. And now more than half of them have been destroyed. Perhaps 10 of the 16 supplied. The tragedy is that Ukraine and Russia could have worked this all out. It seems they were prepared to do just that early on. But such as Boris Johnson scuttled talks and assured Zelensky a steady stream of wunderwaffen which has only served to prolong the killing of Ukraine.
Since Putin took office, the US has been involved in over 100 military interventions. But yeah, Putin the warmonger.
Greek Hoplites? Mounted Steppe Archers? The Airplane? Etc. Don't mean to belittle your point. They've seemingly had a great impact.
The Javelin in this war, in my opinion. It’s been a few months, so we are starting to forget, but apart from the dumb things Russia did to get in its own way, I believe the Javelin played the largest part in staving off a quick Russian victory. If Ukraine had been able to stop the two Russian spearheads snapping shut around Kyiv, I don’t think we would be talking about the MLRS today. That weapon has been far more successful in combat than most people thought it would be. Especially Russia. I think the Javelin was the single greatest factor in forcing Russia to shift from an operational design based on fast armored maneuver to a broad-front, deliberate advance centered around artillery … which is one of the reasons the MLRS became so instrumental. But all just theories at the moment. You don’t really get to analyze a war properly until a few years after it’s over.
Had a chance to catch up with a close Belarusian businesses partner (that I've mentioned before) this evening. We work closely with a lot of resources originally located in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Nearly all of them are now in Poland, Turkey, or as far away as Canada. One guy barely got out yesterday - after mobilization orders. Had to prove his ticket was purchased before the orders. I'm not claiming he has his finger on the pulse over there (he nor I believed Putin would invade until he did), but he has a lot of first hand accounts of what's transpired since, and a lot of understanding of the culture, laws, and overall sentiment. A few highlights from least interesting/ insightful to most: Militarily, this is bad. Russia's 'professional" army is/was hardly that. Gutted as many of us know, and the competent officers they had are now dead or otherwise out of action. There's no ability to properly train the newly mustered troops. Rumors are Putin agreed to the mobilization begrudgingly. The army requested it long ago, when they understood the reality, knew they had a chance or preparing fresh men, and still had public sentiment behind them. Politically, this is bad. He gives Putin 6 months tops - surprised he's still in power. Everyone with money is losing money and the citizenry is mostly done. The only people in support of the war are those that won't fight it. 50+. 20s -30s (you know, the ones you need to arm and send to the front) are massively against the war. His support is as thin as his sycophants. That can't hold out forever. Culturally / economically, yep, you guessed it: bad. A massive transfer of wealth is about to occur with this mobilization. Bribes everywhere, and let's not forget about the impacts of getting troops from the prison population (yes, that happened). Any monied prisoners (and that's a lot of wealthy mob) would simply pay tons of money, get classified as KIA, and poof. Free. More importantly, the social contract is broken. He talked about how Putin wanted to vax Russians, and the people said , "Ah, hell net!" and Putin had to back down. Now, it's the same but worse with mobilization. After 7 months, the people are piecing it together, and you're not taking my husband, father, brother. Hell net! So much more, but my thumbs are sore. This is a man steeped in Russian history and pride. Ive hung out with this guy back in the day while he plowed vodka, sang me songs from the "Russian Bob Dylan", and told stories of the Great Patriotic War. He's no brainwashed Westerner, yet believes Russia has zero chance of victory. Absolute best outcome is West brokers peace with someone not named Vlad and maybe, maybe, they keep Crimea. Interestingly, he doesn't think Putin is Hitler-kind-of-crazy. I.e., if I can't win, nobody can. Doesn't see them using nukes.... tl:dr: I know an Eastern European that thinks Russia is screwed. EDIT: to add: he couldn't help but chuckle out of sadness, seemingly, at the idea of full revolution. Pointing out these are the scenarios that typically create Russian revolutions, and they're about to arm 300,000 men, begrudgingly? When they see how poorly they are supported, then what? EDIT EDIT: Societally, also bad. Russia's birth rate tanked in the 90s, only to marginally rise to non-supportive rates. Russia's population is in bad shape from a numbers and demographics perspective. Now you've got a minor exodus, a major brain drain, and you're about to kill, mame, or otherwise take out of breeding stock how many males?
I think we already knew their value, though. The Javelin had never been used in combat conditions to the best of my knowledge.
The rifle itself (with the rifled bore) was a great advance over the musket. The musket as a weapon was not as good as the bows and arrows that the Indians used. When the English first arrived in America, they became acquainted with First Nation Indians in and around Cape Cod. The English challenged them to a contest between their muskets and the natives' bows and arrows, and the natives started by hitting a narrow tree easily multiple times from 30 yards. The English knew that their muskets could not do the same, so they stopped the competition, so the natives would not know that they had inferior weapons. All that the natives knew was that the musket was loud. Had the word gotten out to natives that these strange people had inferior weapons, the English might have been driven out of America.
There’s always this past (and somehow future) footage of the Russian Army in winter action. But, in all seriousness, don’t accidentally drop your buddy’s name in here. If duggers doesn’t have the GRU on speed dial I’ve missed my guess.
NYT article ... as Russian Losses Mount In Kyiv. Putin Gets More Involved In War Strategy anonymous American/U.S. official/s [said/have said/say]: 15 times, named American semi-officials (Jones, Kofman): 2 times, a named American official (Milley): 1 time, anonymous Ukrainian officials: 1 time. THERE ARE NO SOURCES
no. The us economy is built on the free flow of goods all over the world. Especially because manufacturing which has been outsourced by American companies. Given that, it is vital for the us to protect trade routes and to protect like minded Allies around the world.
This is why the US has been involved in more than 400 military interventions since its founding and 62 coups in Latin America alone ? Why do so many other countries find it unnecessary to behave like that but still manage to prosper ?
I read that the Russians have run out of sandbags so they’re having to use Ukrainian babies instead ... Doctors training takes about 8 years Nurse training takes about 4 years Cop training takes about 6 months Journalism training....6 days at most?
The critical event staving off a quick Russian victory was not so much javelins which mis-fired, missed or simply bounced off Russian tanks, but rather Boris Johnson who scuttled negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow.
