• DerGottesknecht@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      37 minutes ago

      In addition to all the other valid arguments I want to also mention the rotation principle of the ukrainians. They deploy for six months to the Frontline and then rotate between the dugouts and a safehouse for two weeks at a time. So their soldiers have time to relax and eat good food even while deployed which keeps morale high.

      Russia used to just keep their common troops on the frontline until they were exhausted. If I recall correctly they changed this in the last months, but they most likely lost almost all of their pre war trained troops.

    • einkorn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Capable” in this context doesn’t just refer to training alone.

      As laid out in the video, Russian recruits are getting older and older (as in: have sometimes even fought in Soviet era conflicts) and recruitment standards are dropped more and more (apparently having Schizophrenia is OK for a Russian soldier) to keep a steady influx of warm bodies. Next, Russian recruits appear to be broadly separated into two groups: The meat shields who are rushed to the front with minimal training to plug the biggest holes in the units (stark examples include only multiple days between reported recruitment and death). The second group is going through a more traditional training regiment but also shortened. This shortening also applies to officer candidates.

      In short: Recruits are getting less physically capable due to the average age increasing drastically over time, and militarily less capable due to shortened or basically nonexistent training.

      As for the Ukrainians: I expect the video with analysis on their casualties and recruitment to drop this week.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well the Ukrainians are at least trying to train their troops while Russia has been caught shoving raw recruits into the front line after literally no training. Those reports are obviously magnified by each side’s information ops but we do know the Russians have a survivability problem. The two biggest things you learn in basic are what to do when someone starts shooting, and how to hit things with your rifle. Everything else is extra that’s meant to make you able to use specialized equipment. The real learning environment has always been combat itself. And in this arena the Ukrainians are absolutely dominant.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because Ukranian troops have 2 things Russian troops will never have.

      • Commanders that don’t use idiotic human wave attacks.
      • Shoes.
      • vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Also

        • a good reason to fight

        The motivation of russian soldiers is about as sound as was the motivation of US troops in Vietnam. “Protect the free world from communism by attacking another country”. Yeah, ok.

        The US had an active force of half a million troops at the height of that attempted occupation and a total of more than 3 million troops had been deployed in Vietnam over the course of the 6 years of war. The US committed various terrorist acts and warcrimes. By the numbers, they had superiority in pretty much every way. At some point it looked like there were doing fine, and they utterly lost. They lost 58k soldiers.

        Sounds vaguely familiar to me.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Unfortunate slight difference, The US was unwilling to go full scorched earth, the potential effect of the US bomber fleet using just conventional munitions was described as having the potential to do almost as much devastation as a nuclear strike, despite the warcrimes the US still held back. I doubt Putin would bat an eye at such a policy we’re simply fortunate the russian military simply isn’t capable of that kind of attack.

          • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            The US was unwilling to go full scorched earth, the potential effect of the US bomber fleet using just conventional munitions was described as having the potential to do almost as much devastation as a nuclear strike, despite the warcrimes the US still held back.

            Look I want to live in a universe with a version of the US without Henry Kissinger too, but this just doesn’t seem like an honest view of the history here.

            I don’t understand in what sense the U.S. held back from bombing. Fuck, one of the major criticisms of U.S. military strategy in the Vietnam war was the idea that if they just bombed them hard enough, over and over and over again carpet bombing with B-52s loaded to the brim with conventional bombs, than that would magically win the war all by itself.

            Along the way, Rolling Thunder also fell prey to the same dysfunctional managerial attitudes as did the rest of the American military effort in Southeast Asia. The process of the campaign became an end unto itself, with sortie generation as the standard by which progress was measured.[129] Sortie rates and the number of bombs dropped, however, equaled efficiency, not effectiveness.[130]

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder

            https://renewvn.org/the-most-bombed-place-on-earth/

            https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390bba4735cdb#%3A~%3Atext=Between+1965+and+1975%2C+the%2Caerial+bombardment+in+human+history.

            https://www.maginternational.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/laos/

            To be clear, I don’t think this makes the illegal Russian invasion and war in Ukraine okay. I am against the war and support arming Ukrainians, fuck Putin, but I think it is important to be realistic about things as we discuss this. I am not even sure the Russian military could even approach a conventional bombing campaign on the same scale, I certainly don’t think they could do it without getting absolutely chewed up by AA since most of the munitions would have to be likely delivered by ground attack aircraft like the su-25 or even more vulnerable strategic bombers.

            A bombing campaign of that size is essentially impossible to do in a near peer conflict like the war in Ukraine which is an environment where both sides have extensive missiles armaments, radar and electronic warfare capabilities.

        • coolusername@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Do you even realize that Ukrainian terrorism via the SBU (CIA) happens around once every two weeks?

          The thousands of ethnic Russians killed by banderists?

      • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s good to remember that a small subset of Ukrainian commanders do see soldiers as mere cannon fodder. Mere 11 years ago, the Ukrainian military was run almost precisely the same way as the Russian one. And many commanders are from before 2014. Many of them have converted to the new ways since 2014, but some haven’t. That’s a problem that severely hampers Ukraine’s recruitment capacity. Still, Ukrainians are a nation that will flex when it needs to. If the Russia starts advancing faster than the 0.7 % of Ukraine’s total area in year like they did in 2024, people get more afraid of what is going on and get motivated to join the armed forces.