He has simply pointing out that civilians and chemical attacks would be catastrophic. That is a factual statement. Realize there are more that a few military SMs on this thread, some of us even have recent combat experience........might even have more time in service than you too. Ya never know.

Try not to be so condescending.

A Russian MTLB auxiliary vehicle’s de-mothball works list.
Following the crew’s meeting with Ukraine’s 72nd Mechanized Infantry Brigade troops. pic.twitter.com/1Sm00g0J2Q

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) March 10, 2022

This girl is on fire 🔥 pic.twitter.com/yiAMXds8MM

— Oryx (@oryxspioenkop) March 10, 2022

Rossticus said:

---

If the Russians actually use chemical weapons against the Ukrainian civilian population it would produce catastrophic lethality. Chemical munitions not effective against equipped US troops. Terrible impact on civilians. Predict we would enter the war.

— Barry R McCaffrey (@mccaffreyr3) March 10, 2022

---

Is he admitting US troops in Ukraine

Regardless of nuclear capabilities there's still the whole 'land war in Asia' thing. The country is absolutely massive though sparsely populated. Any military would be stretched thin trying to handle that.

They'd fall but it wouldn't be a cakewalk in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Off to see the wizard. 03 CRO. Just returned home after 2 years in AVB but spun up again.

---

Can you explain what this means? Sorry

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Maybe you have been sucked into a propaganda campaign...

The Pentagon believes the vast majority of the Russian force is fine. But if you want to believe chuck Norris snuck into a helipad site and disabled 20 Russian helicopters with thermite like the media told you, that's on you.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

The Fife said:

---

Regardless of nuclear capabilities there's still the whole 'land war in Asia' thing. The country is absolutely massive though sparsely populated. Any military would be stretched thin trying to handle that.

They'd fall but it wouldn't be a cakewalk in my opinion.

---

I mean, to just drive them out of Ukraine.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Setting aside the nuclear issue for a minute, Russia is paradoxically entirely out of date and able to accomplish goals in modern times because it is one of the few actors in the world still willing to fight wars as they were fought 100 years ago.

It both gains them victories and immensely limits them at the same time. NATO could absolutely wipe them out but Russia's willingness to accept a lot of casualties and use a bunch of nasty weapons which very few others have considered using for many decades would make it a really gruesome experience.


***And I would argue their (perceived) willingness to use a nuke is out dated but also terribly effective in modern times.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

The Fife said:

---

Regardless of nuclear capabilities there's still the whole 'land war in Asia' thing. The country is absolutely massive though sparsely populated. Any military would be stretched thin trying to handle that.

They'd fall but it wouldn't be a cakewalk in my opinion.

---

I mean, to just drive them out of Ukraine.

---

That, yeah. Russia in Ukraine would get rolled like Saddam did in 1991 without the nuke card.

The Fife said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

The Fife said:

---

Regardless of nuclear capabilities there's still the whole 'land war in Asia' thing. The country is absolutely massive though sparsely populated. Any military would be stretched thin trying to handle that.

They'd fall but it wouldn't be a cakewalk in my opinion.

---

I mean, to just drive them out of Ukraine.

---

That, yeah. Russia in Ukraine would get rolled like Saddam did in 1991 without the nuke card.

---

And 2003

Mr Gigem said:

---

Quote:

---

Off to see the wizard. 03 CRO. Just returned home after 2 years in AVB but spun up again.

---

Can you explain what this means? Sorry

---

CRO= Combat Search & Rescue
AVB= Aviation Bonus

The Debt said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Maybe you have been sucked into a propaganda campaign...

The Pentagon believes the vast majority of the Russian force is fine. But if you want to believe chuck Norris snuck into a helipad site and disabled 20 Russian helicopters with thermite like the media told you, that's on you.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

---

Well that's not a rosy picture there.

How is this possible, though? This is the best case for Russia that we've seen even from official Western sources.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

This is a very big impact as the Iskander is high up on the high value target list and will mitigate Russia’s capability to conduct strikes throughout Ukraine. If things like this continue Russia will have to start shifting to air assets for targets out of range of MLRS. https://t.co/CKR5j8011h

— The Intel Hub (@The_IntelHub) March 10, 2022

---

could this system be reset/rebooted against the russian aircraft?

It's not an anti aircraft missile

The Debt said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Maybe you have been sucked into a propaganda campaign...

The Pentagon believes the vast majority of the Russian force is fine. But if you want to believe chuck Norris snuck into a helipad site and disabled 20 Russian helicopters with thermite like the media told you, that's on you.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

---

I don't think the vast majority of the Russian force that was originally deployed is fine. Nor do I think the Russia is incapable of surrounding and besieging Kyiv or cutting off forces in other parts of the country. It takes time to deploy resources during a war and I don't think the Ukes are throwing masses of volunteers into the fight in desperation yet. I suspect that the Russians have absorbed around 35k in casualties KIA/WIA/MIA/Captured. They've degraded their armored force by about 20% maybe a bit more. Those are about equivalent. I don't think the Russians will attempt to force Kyiv and go street by street. I'm sure they would be content to cut them off and pound them into the ground with artillery. That seems to be what they are doing in Kharkiv and in Mariupol. Of course they've been flat stone cold stopped by the Uke front line military at Kharkiv. I would think that their air force losses have been significantly less than their armored losses so far.

It's also clear, despite what the Pentagon has said, that Russia is moving forces within Russia. To where and how many, it's not clear. I would bet that Russia moves at least another 100-200k in forces and reservists, call ups, volunteers, etc. into the theatre over the next 6-8 weeks. Now the Ukes have called up and received about that many volunteers, expats, territorial volunteers. But that doesn't mean they will be supplied, armed and prepared to go into battle in a cohesive manner. Just the opposite.

The whole situation is still in flux. The best chance that the Ukes have is that the Russian economy falls completely apart and their reinforcements and will to combat allow them to stall or even push back localized advances and ambush enough supply trains that the Russians in the field can no longer sustain operations.

But the Russians do have more men and equipment (for now). They retain the strategic advantage and if they can isolate some of the regular forces and force them into retreat they will regain control. Right now the Ukrainians will be unable to relieve Sumy and Mariupol. Same for Chernhiv in a few days or a week (barring a counter attack on the Russian probes reaching east to west). That will also free up significant channels for the Russians to move supplies forward to the battlefield. Their failure in those 3 cities and Kharkiv is wrecking and exposing their logistical train to further attack.

However over the next 5-7 days huge numbers of anti-tank weapons will hit the battlefield. We don't know what impact that will have. And the Ukes if they are smart will probably be massing those to coordinate with drone strikes and new reserves and volunteers to effectuate localized counter offensives to reorient the lines, cut off and eliminate Russian salients that are difficult to defend and supply force the Russians into a lot of difficult decisions on how and where to expend reserves that they have crowded into these axes of attack.

The Debt said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Maybe you have been sucked into a propaganda campaign...

The Pentagon believes the vast majority of the Russian force is fine. But if you want to believe chuck Norris snuck into a helipad site and disabled 20 Russian helicopters with thermite like the media told you, that's on you.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

---

An assessment of forces intact isn't assessment that they're modern, well-trained, well-equipped, good at fighting a war, or what NATO could do in a conventional confrontation. I think the Pentagon has also been assessing Russia's running into all sorts of problems. And been assessing that much of Ukraine's ability to fight this war remain intact, too.

That's no prediction that Ukraine will win this immediate war but the Pentagon has made clear recently their assessment is Russia is having plenty of difficulties.

The big question is how long can Putin sustain this level of effort? If 5% of the Russian army has been destroyed, it's not much. But if they're having severe supply chain issues and the sanctions are biting hard at Putin's ability to sustain, then that's a different picture. Some of these major cities may be leveled. In the end if the goal of Putin is Ukraine's natural resources, then he doesn't need the cities to remain intact.

He's probably also gambling that the EU will be starved for NG/Oil/Products that when the war ends, they'll sign back up for delivery. If EU can handle a severe recession and stay off Russian Oil, then Putin's escapades will be for naught.

Lastly, if Putin wins and this becomes an insurgency with modern weapons vs his old equipment, the long term ability to replace with upgraded equipment and better trained men will also decline. This may last a decade.

of it, the more he will play it. Putin has never been one to respect any semblance of weakness. Recent events should have driven that point home. Thankfully, the blueprint for how to deal with such Russian grandstanding already exists. @POTUS should deliver a variation on 2/

— Patrick Fox (@RealCynicalFox) March 10, 2022

Waffledynamics said:

---

The Debt said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Maybe you have been sucked into a propaganda campaign...

The Pentagon believes the vast majority of the Russian force is fine. But if you want to believe chuck Norris snuck into a helipad site and disabled 20 Russian helicopters with thermite like the media told you, that's on you.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

---

Well that's not a rosy picture there.

How is this possible, though? This is the best case for Russia that we've seen even from official Western sources.

---

It's possible if you sift through all the garbage on social media. If you believe that Russia has about 3,000 KIA, then it's plausible that they've suffered 10,000-12,000 casualties overall. That'd put you at about 94-92% of their force still intact, (also assuming the reports of 150,000 troops are accurate).

The Ukrainians are the "good guys" so it's harder for people to post the disappointing news and sober analysis of the situation rather than a picture of a tank on fire, or a clearly staged fake phone call.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is Russian Military worth anything? Are they well trained? Are they well equipped? Are their weapons modern? Are the generals and officers any good at fighting a war? Besides the threat of "Nuke" and the previous glory of USSR days, it seems like a poor ass country barely hanging on.

Why do I think the NATO and the US Military can wipe them off the earth, sans the Nuke.

---

Not sure how closely the current Russian program matches the old Soviet one, but if so, the answer to the bolded questions is no for the conscript units. Clancy's explanation in Red Storm Rising was that the Soviets conscripted troops in 6 month intervals with a 2 years service period. The officers were a professional corps that were in for longer, but in conscripted units, the most experiences troops were in their last 6 months of a 2 year term. So their sergeants were only slightly older and more experienced than the rest of the troops they served with, and were not "career" soldiers like the senior sergeants in our armed forces. The handout of arms, supplies, etc. was run by the conscripts with the most service and hazing of the newer troops was common, as somebody described earlier in this thread. That puts alot of pressure on their officers to lead troops that otherwise are not very cohesive as a unit in many cases.

Not trying to be condescending at all. But the US military as a whole is woefully unprepared and untrained for chemical warfare. The assumption that issued CBRN gear is adequate protection, especially given the minimal training time we invest in its employment, is a dangerous one.

Quote:

---

The Ukrainians are the "good guys" so it's harder for people to post the disappointing news and sober analysis of the situation rather than a picture of a tank on fire, or a clearly staged fake phone call.

---

There are plenty of pro-Russia social media players out there with large followings. If there were a ton of Russian "wins" in Ukraine, they would be making the rounds.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

“Get some, you bitch”
🇺🇦Kyiv region pic.twitter.com/fHKUSWsPh0

— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) March 10, 2022

---

Was that some sort of IED / mine?

The Fife said:

---

Regardless of nuclear capabilities there's still the whole 'land war in Asia' thing. The country is absolutely massive though sparsely populated. Any military would be stretched thin trying to handle that.

They'd fall but it wouldn't be a cakewalk in my opinion.

---

Napolean tried and lost.
Hitler tried and lost.

No one can ever truly tame the bear. It's best to contain it and when it behaves feed it a bit so it doesn't eat the other animals close to it.

Pray one day that the bear's offspring become more like pandas and less like grizzlies.

LostInLA07 said:

---

I don't think they are estimating he has lost 5% of his military. Just 5% of the forces committed to Ukraine. Also, I agree that unfortunately Putin will likely prefer to level cities vs. try to occupy them. He doesn't have the troop count needed for that. He'd much rather shell the cities until everyone has either left or is dead and then walk in to whatever is left.

---

They have lost well more than 5%. I'd estimate closer to 20% but at least 10-15% at a minimum. Their armored forces have lost that much in just visually (photo, video) verified equipment. Go search Oryx on twitter or go to https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/ to find the lists.