Has Ukraine collapsed

[andy06shake]

 


Me?  I keep citing sources outlining the actual situation.  And making logical conclusions.

The Ukraine has a manpower shortage.  Not a training problem.  While Russia literally has millions more than the Ukrainian.  With the Ukraine losing territory week to week.

Again.  The general consensus is an advantage of 5 or 7 to one to take territory and hold it.  What gets the Ukraine the advantage to recapture scores of square kilometres of lost land and hold it where Russia has the manpower advantage.

You indeed.

"Would you give up and submit if Russia invades the USA?"

Still waiting or simple clarification as to the above? 

3rd time I've asked you now without an answer. 
 
And once again, your argument is shallow and outdated.

Same as your simplistic comparison with Vietnam.

There is nothing logical about submission or capitulation.

And wars aren't decided by raw headcounts.

Ukraine offsets manpower with better intelligence, drones, precision fire, defensive terrain, morale, and Western logistics.

Russia's numerical "millions" translates poorly into combat power or sustainable offensive capability.

Which is clearly evident given the snail's pace of an advance.

[WallFlowerActive]

You indeed.

Strategy wise.  The Ukraine is acting more like Japan or Germany in the final months of WW II.  Pressing anyone it can find into service and looking for that magic bullet or wonder weapon.  While Russia strategy wise is more like the Alies slow push through the pacific, Italy, or North Africa.

[Oldcarpy2]

Strategy wise.  The Ukraine is acting more like Japan or Germany in the final months of WW II.  Pressing anyone it can find into service and looking for that magic bullet or wonder weapon.  While Russia strategy wise is more like the Alies slow push through the pacific, Italy, or North Africa.

No, it isn't.  Russia is stuck in WW1 tactics with poor equipment and logistics.

Your analogies are simply lame.

[WallFlowerActive]

"Would you give up and submit if Russia invades the USA?"

Many examples of US and UK soldiers in WWII surrendering when the fight became useless.  I don’t what to tell you.  Or the UK leaving Dunkirk.  Or the UK retreats in North Africa.  Know what mad a difference, Allies putting boots on the ground with the UK.  Not just equipment.

[WallFlowerActive]

No, it isn't.  Russia is stuck in WW1 tactics with poor equipment and logistics.

Your analogies are simply lame.

You mean this?



I never posted anything other than Russia made gains in WWII with anything other than sear numbers

[andy06shake]

Strategy wise.  The Ukraine is acting more like Japan or Germany in the final months of WW II.  Pressing anyone it can find into service and looking for that magic bullet or wonder weapon.  While Russia strategy wise is more like the Alies slow push through the pacific, Italy, or North Africa.

And once again, not an answer to the simple question posed. 

"Would you give up and submit if Russia invades the USA?"

Simple reciprocation seems to be beyond your ability.

As to the comparison, sounds like lazy WWII cosplay to me.

Ukraine isn't throwing kids into last ditch suicide charges or chasing fantasy superweapons.

It's fighting for its very survival as a nation whilst running a modern war against a much larger invader.

And Russia isn't the Allies either, it's burning men and armor for meters of mud, relying on artillery and prisoners to advance sometimes yards. 

The Allied "slow pushes" worked because of overwhelming logistics, coordination, and legitimacy.

Russia has none of that.

[andy06shake]

Many examples of US and UK soldiers in WWII surrendering when the fight became useless.  I don’t what to tell you.  Or the UK leaving Dunkirk.  Or the UK retreats in North Africa.  Know what mad a difference, Allies putting boots on the ground with the UK.  Not just equipment.

That's just historical cherry-picking.

Dunkirk wasn't a surrender.

It was a successful evacuation that saved an army to fight again.

Tactical retreats in North Africa weren't collapse, they were standard maneuver warfare.

Yes, Allied troops surrendered sometimes, so did everyone, including Germany and Japan.

That doesn't prove your point.

And "boots on the ground" worked because the Allies had air dominance, logistics, and industrial might on their side. 

Again, something Russia simply does not have.

Dropping NATO troops into Ukraine wouldn't magically fix manpower, it would trigger a third world war...

[Oldcarpy2]

Then the European Union should send in troops.  I really think Putin might not stop at the Ukraine.   But Europe seemed more concerned with cheap energy.  Europe help create the Putin monster and now doesn’t want to do what it will take to clean up the mess.

That would start WW3.  So, no.

[WallFlowerActive]

And once again, not an answer to the simple question posed. 

"Would you give up and submit if Russia invades the USA?"

You want the Truth.  Under Biden and the direction the Us was going, I wouldn’t fight unless I had the means.

Under Trump, I would fight until I didn’t have the means.

If it was China, I would fight until I couldn’t find the means.


WW II. Germany, France, Japan probably thought they would never surrender. So one can often think one way and end up doing another.  


Again.  The general consensus is an advantage of 5 or 7 to one to take territory and hold it.  What gets the Ukraine the advantage to recapture scores of square kilometres of lost land and hold it where Russia has the manpower advantage.Or the Ukraine just going to wait until it’s firebombed like Germany while the Ukraine “allies” are happy as long as arms dealers get rich.

[Oldcarpy2]

And once again, not an answer to the simple question posed. 

"Would you give up and submit if Russia invades the USA?"

Simple reciprocation seems to be beyond your ability.

As to the comparison, sounds like lazy WWII cosplay to me.

Ukraine isn't throwing kids into last ditch suicide charges or chasing fantasy superweapons.

It's fighting for its very survival as a nation whilst running a modern war against a much larger invader.

And Russia isn't the Allies either, it's burning men and armor for meters of mud, relying on artillery and prisoners to advance sometimes yards. 

The Allied "slow pushes" worked because of overwhelming logistics, coordination, and legitimacy.

Russia has none of that.

"Quisling" springs to mind?