2181
me🇺🇦irl
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
2181 points (100.0% liked)
me_irl
5184 readers
2924 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Weapons don't win wars, people do, and Ukraine has a severe troops shortage right now that will only get worse as the war goes on. You can give them all the weapons in the world, if there's no one there to fire them, they'll still lose
Guess India just lacked the manpower to kick out the Brits. Same with the Japanese and *checks notes, 4 American ships.
Weapons absolutely matter.
I never said weapons don't matter, I said people do matter, and if the war goes on long enough then ukraine won't have any to fight the war.
The weapon difference between colonial India and Britain is nowhere near that between Russia and Ukraine. This has become a war of artillery and drones, both sides have them and can produce them at scale. This isn't some colonial era imperial war where one side has machine guns and the other has a couple muskets and swords.
Why don't you look to more modern examples where overwhelming firepower and technological superiority was supposed to win a war, like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Hell look at Korea, China was able to force the Americans to a draw after it's economy was in ruins after a decade of Japanese occupation and civil war while the u.s. had half the worlds production capacity. The Russian economy is leagues better then China was in the early 50s, and the u.s. isnt nearly as dominant.
Modern example. Sure. Desert storm 1991. The Kuwaitis sure didn't have to deal with an insurance after the Iraqis were kicked out.
And that's one thing all your examples have in common. A guerrilla insurgency fighting an invading or occupying force. That's not what will happen in Ukraine.
Give them what they need to win
The Korean war didn't involve an insurgency to a large extent. Or russias last conventional war, which they won through attrition and throwing bodies at the line.
The thing about the gulf war, and the six day war, was they relied on overwhelming aerial superiority and a quick end to the conflict. That strategy only works for so long because eventually the enemy can take out your aircraft and modern planes are hard to build so it takes a while to build up again, so you have to use them sparingly. Even if we gave ukraine f22s the Russians have jets of there own and SAMs to take them down. Both sides have ramped down there air campaigns because both sides have ways to take down the planes which are very expensive. Again this is a war of artillery, drones and armor, both sides have them and no magical million dollar weapons system from Lockheed Martin will change that.
Shock and awe only works for so long, and once it's worn off you can find yourselve in a quagmire and running out of troops.
Didn't Iraq have jets of their own? Didn't Iraq have the latest SAM systems?
I love how you're just making shit up and moving the goalposts
That is fundementally wrong. Firepower absolutely makes up for numbers disadvantage.
if a hundred Russians, Norks and other Mercenaries and their vehicles get smoked in a battle by a single cluster bomb. Rinse and repeat
These people are delusional, the liberation of Ukraine can only happen if NATO troops land on the battlefield. And we all know that means nuclear war.
It only means Nuclear War if Putin decides he's ready to die.
its not a gaurantee he flips a switch and decides to unleash fire the second NATO starts shooting at him, good chance he scuffles off and cuts his losses, if the fighting is contained to Ukraine and the border, its not a given that he'd condemn himself and his empire to death over the wasteland that is the Donbas