> Have we been watching the same war? Ukraine is getting absolutely trounced

I for sure have not been watching it on RT.

Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm, not “our three days special operation has been bogged down in Donbass for three years”.

> Um, air defenses in Ukraine are virtually nonexistent these days. Shahed attacks get through every time these days

If only… The only way Russia keeps a steady amount of damage from Shahed is by multiplying their deployment because the AFU similarly increase their interceptions.

> shrug Putin has said he would do it explicitly and Ive never known him to bluff.

Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke, and it turned out these red lines where all bluff.

> He invaded the largest country in Europe

The third biggest, after Russia (and France) with only a fifth the population of Russia, and a country that didn't have an actual army before 2014.

> supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world.

Just barely: western countries first refused to send heavy weapons, then refused to send tanks, then refused to send fighter jets, then they piled up restrictions after restrictions on the use of force and some are still refusing to send long range weapons (hello Germany).

> Did he fail if it takes 5 years to secure capitulation?

He definitely failed his 3 days military operation and put his country in a years long war that annihilated all of its army modernization program that was running for the past decade. Now how much can he limit the consequences of his failure is an open question.

And that doesn't change the fact that he still hasn't been able to win against the small and weak Ukraine after three years, which is not a good situation to be in if you want to fight European powers together…

▲

pydry 13 hours ago | parent [-]

>Combined arms done well is Op Desert Storm

Desert storm was a war against an isolated 3rd world country with no military industry and military hardware from the 1970s.

Were the Iraqis plugged into the supply chains of a global superpower (like, say, the vietcong was) then it'd be a bit more comparable.

>Just barely

Not just barely. We've emptied our inventories of air defense missiles. European capitals are essentially undefended.

Trump, meanwhile, has decided to wrap up supplies because he wants to save the remaining arms for a war with China.

It's not fun being a Russian proxy but it's even less fun being an expendable American junior partner.

The biggest poke in the eye has to be Denmark. They emptied their inventories the most out of all of NATO and Trump is now threatening their sovereign territory.

>Well, you've not been following the conflict that closely as Putin said multiple times that doing this or that (striking Kerch Bridge, shipping ATACMS, shipping tanks, attacking Russian soil) would mean he'd use nuke

This never happened even once. The west just made a big song and dance about crossing what they declared to be Russian red lines.

They backed away from a few, as well.

>3 days military operation

Was a phrase used by US General Mark Milley: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-w...

By contrast, in 2022 Putin gave a timeline of "as long as it takes".

It is impressive enough that the largest country in Europe supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world is being defeated at all. There are lessons we could learn from this or we could do as you do - stick our fingers in our ears and just pretend everything is rosy.

	▲	littlestymaar 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Desert storm was a war against an isolated 3rd world country with no military industry and military hardware from the 1970s. Why do you keep embarassing yourself on a topic you have no clue about except what you heard from Russian propaganda? Saddam's army was full of modern western and soviet kits and was much better equipped than the AFU (not only for the time but in general: Irak in 1991 had more modern weapons than the Soviet leftover the Ukrainians had back in 2022). Ukraine is as much of a shithole country as Saddam's Ukraine was, of just happened to have a more competent military leadership, and faced an incompetent opponent. > Were the Iraqis plugged into the supply chains of a global superpower (like, say, the vietcong was) then it'd be a bit more comparable. It wouldn't have, because the supply wouldn't have arrived in time. Like what happened in the 6 days war, where the Arab countries were indeed plugged into the Soviet supply line but lost too fast for that to matter. That's the point of the Airland Battle doctrine to begin with. That's also why the US refused to hand over heavy weapons before the invasion, as they genuinely expected the Russians to be capable of toppling the AFU in just a few days or weeks, and didn't expect their aid to be enough to overcome the challenge. > Was a phrase used by US General Mark Milley As if Soloviev and other Kremlin-approved pundits never said that as well. Also the “special military operation” phrase itself was coined by Putin and people calling that a “war” were criminalized. > By contrast, in 2022 Putin gave a timeline of "as long as it takes". After the retreat in early 2022, which he described like it was all going according to plans… Why are you listening to pathological liars? > Not just barely. We've emptied our inventories of air defense missiles. European capitals are essentially undefended. Same question as above, why do you keep believing Russian BS? While air defense is probably the only domain where the assistance has been nontrivial (unlike tanks or airframes with the single digit packages), only a minor fraction of the stocks have been handed over to Ukraine (stocks which were never enough to protect European cities in the first place, as the Western doctrine for air space protection leans much more on fighter jets and AA missiles than on SAM batteries which fit a much narrower niche than in Warsaw pact's doctrine). Needless to say that the AA capabilities of European nations are still untouched and would pose an overwhelming threat to a VKS which have proved its poor combat readiness at the start of the war and has been badly maimed by a country without modern fighters… > Trump, meanwhile, has decided to wrap up supplies because he wants to save the remaining arms for a war with China. You missed the memo from last week when Hegseth said China isn't a priority for the US and that they are focusing on the “Western hemisphere ”. > This never happened even once. The west just made a big song and dance about crossing what they declared to be Russian red lines. This level of selective forgetting is unbelievable, really. > It is impressive enough that the largest country in Europe You keep repeating this BS, but Ukraine is only barely more populated as Belgium and the Nederland combined. It's very, very far from being the largest country in Europe population wise… > Europe supplied by the richest and most powerful military bloc in the world The said military block has barely provided a few percent of its defense budget to Ukraine for the past three years. > is being defeated at all It's not so far. Putin and his enthusiasts may dream about Ukraine being defeated but the truth is that 3 years in Russia still isn't defeating anyone. > stick our fingers in our ears and just pretend everything is rosy. Not everything is rosy, especially because European leaders are too reluctant to supply Ukraine and have not taken the appropriate industrial investments to make that supply possible. But that doesn't mean the picture is rose on the Russian side either…