With Ukraine suffering heavy casualties it can hardly be called a stalemate. It is called attrition. Where positional warfare plays its role, because in order to manoeuvre you need the opportunity to do so.
He seems to highlight that Russia did not have sucess early on in the war. The area around Lugansk was a large sucess, it would not be possible without the operation around Kiev, where Russia also did well considering that they were greatly outnumbered there. Then the author attributed the destruction of the Kahovka dam to Russia when the evidence is inconclusive, and in an academic presentation, facts must be considered, especially since the destruction seemed to favour Ukriane and not Russia.
The brief need a lot of work and correction. It will be interesting to see how the RF blow the dam considering that they lost all the def., they are on the low side of the river... Work and no BS plz
What is happening now is not stalemate. Russians have favorable ratio of human losses and in same time gain territory. But modern weapons gave huge firepower in hands of relatively light and mobile units so fast and deep military penetrations can result in ambushes and large losses, while slower progress give chance to defender to quickly set defense line and ambushes.
Overall, a balanced presentation. I'm somewhat reassured that the serious thinkers behind the scenes do take the Russian's seriously, but they need to be very careful. I hope there is some discussion posted on the elephant in the room. Oreshnik (Russian: Орешник, lit. 'Hazel tree'). Thank you for posting these. It will soon be the celebration of Jesus's birthday, for those inclined, a prayer for the soldiers on both sides would be welcomed. 🎄
Despite the "Oppressive regime in Russia, it encourages the military thinking" :-) It looks that your regime is so oppressive that wouldn't you start your monologue with this words you would not be allowed to the scene. Otherwise, thanks for review...
agreee, i watched most of them but gotta fast forward or skip em, very low quality, its clear non of em served in tank/cav unit with real experience. just talking bs or obvius facts u can read on wiki.
I don't think ru learned anytime anything. Also in ww2 they were first rescued by the western alliances and then won be sheer number of people and not by any good tactics or strategy. Just look at the number of kia.
I think you are looming inside the Hollywood ponyland. Check the actual record on that. The whole Western alliance faced 20% of the Germans. 80% of them died on the Eastern front. Most of the casualties that soviets got was in concentration camps where people were destroyed on an industrial level. Peasants at the beginning of the war didn't knew what surrender would mean. Also soviets were not faced by the Germans but with half of Europe at that point. Look how many countries became Nazi offilliates in 1942.
You don't think. Precisely the cause of all your problems. I don't know which WWII you're talking about, but it's probably WWII from some other multiverse where western alliances destroyed over 80% of entire Germany's army. Cause in our universe USSR inflicted all this damage on the Eastern frontline. And during this war Soviets never had as many casualties on one frontline during 1 week as Normandy landing. Talking about winning by sheer number of people and not by any good tactics or strategy. Normandy landing fits this description. It was stupid waste of life only for political reasons to get to Berlin faster than Soviets. And even then, Soviets took Berlin and war was over.
You don't seem to have a clue. Of course they learned, just like they are learning now, and that's why the Russians are doing well tactically, in contrast to 2022. They learned from their mistakes in the same way in World War II. You can easily read about it if you look into it, which is never really done. What you're saying is, as always, the ignorant nonsense that every "expert" who has his own narrative spouts. And if you can't get out of your narrative, then you're lost anyway.
@@MrZlocktar He's right. The sheer numbers of vehicles, weapons, money and so much more that the Soviet Union received from the US alone shouldn't be downplayed. The numbers are staggering. And Germany MIGHT not have attacked if it hadn't been for the Soviet Union's horrible performance in the Winter War against little Finland. AND the war might not have happened if the Soviet Union had simply opposed Germany from the beginning. But no, the Soviet Union helped start the war in 1939. The USSR lost 27 million people with tons of help in a war they helped start. Yeah, brilliant.
This is the most biased shit i read in a loooong long time. Holy shit how ignorant and incompetent can a sentence be? There are so many books and works from actual historians about soviet tactics and strategies that worked absolutely well. Even Memoirs of German officers mentioned the strength of the soviet soldiers. Military has to be seen in an objective way. It doesn't matter if you like the nation behind the army. Damn do you people even think a second before typing nonsense like this?
With Ukraine suffering heavy casualties it can hardly be called a stalemate. It is called attrition. Where positional warfare plays its role, because in order to manoeuvre you need the opportunity to do so.
LGBT army looks concerned
That's why they try to recruite Q+ lol
He seems to highlight that Russia did not have sucess early on in the war. The area around Lugansk was a large sucess, it would not be possible without the operation around Kiev, where Russia also did well considering that they were greatly outnumbered there.
Then the author attributed the destruction of the Kahovka dam to Russia when the evidence is inconclusive, and in an academic presentation, facts must be considered, especially since the destruction seemed to favour Ukriane and not Russia.
Obviously Sun Tzu Art of War has NOT been translated into Austrian German.
The brief need a lot of work and correction. It will be interesting to see how the RF blow the dam considering that they lost all the def., they are on the low side of the river...
Work and no BS plz
Krisztián!!!!! Hajrá!!!
What is happening now is not stalemate. Russians have favorable ratio of human losses and in same time gain territory. But modern weapons gave huge firepower in hands of relatively light and mobile units so fast and deep military penetrations can result in ambushes and large losses, while slower progress give chance to defender to quickly set defense line and ambushes.
Overall, a balanced presentation. I'm somewhat reassured that the serious thinkers behind the scenes do take the Russian's seriously, but they need to be very careful. I hope there is some discussion posted on the elephant in the room. Oreshnik (Russian: Орешник, lit. 'Hazel tree'). Thank you for posting these. It will soon be the celebration of Jesus's birthday, for those inclined, a prayer for the soldiers on both sides would be welcomed. 🎄
Great talk, when a lecture has few yt likes usualy it is very good
Very interesting and informative 🙏✌️
This talk is pure gold
Despite the "Oppressive regime in Russia, it encourages the military thinking" :-) It looks that your regime is so oppressive that wouldn't you start your monologue with this words you would not be allowed to the scene. Otherwise, thanks for review...
Who told you that they relied on German and French
The way you tell what person think is so delusional of you
I must say this seminar was so vary bad, so low quality. He talked talked talked but was just mentioning theories, while he develped none.
Totaly true!
agreee, i watched most of them but gotta fast forward or skip em, very low quality, its clear non of em served in tank/cav unit with real experience. just talking bs or obvius facts u can read on wiki.
why dont ukraine create manouver formations with girl officers like sweden and uk ?
I don't think ru learned anytime anything.
Also in ww2 they were first rescued by the western alliances and then won be sheer number of people and not by any good tactics or strategy. Just look at the number of kia.
I think you are looming inside the Hollywood ponyland. Check the actual record on that. The whole Western alliance faced 20% of the Germans. 80% of them died on the Eastern front. Most of the casualties that soviets got was in concentration camps where people were destroyed on an industrial level. Peasants at the beginning of the war didn't knew what surrender would mean. Also soviets were not faced by the Germans but with half of Europe at that point. Look how many countries became Nazi offilliates in 1942.
You don't think. Precisely the cause of all your problems. I don't know which WWII you're talking about, but it's probably WWII from some other multiverse where western alliances destroyed over 80% of entire Germany's army. Cause in our universe USSR inflicted all this damage on the Eastern frontline.
And during this war Soviets never had as many casualties on one frontline during 1 week as Normandy landing.
Talking about winning by sheer number of people and not by any good tactics or strategy. Normandy landing fits this description. It was stupid waste of life only for political reasons to get to Berlin faster than Soviets. And even then, Soviets took Berlin and war was over.
You don't seem to have a clue. Of course they learned, just like they are learning now, and that's why the Russians are doing well tactically, in contrast to 2022. They learned from their mistakes in the same way in World War II. You can easily read about it if you look into it, which is never really done. What you're saying is, as always, the ignorant nonsense that every "expert" who has his own narrative spouts. And if you can't get out of your narrative, then you're lost anyway.
@@MrZlocktar He's right. The sheer numbers of vehicles, weapons, money and so much more that the Soviet Union received from the US alone shouldn't be downplayed. The numbers are staggering.
And Germany MIGHT not have attacked if it hadn't been for the Soviet Union's horrible performance in the Winter War against little Finland.
AND the war might not have happened if the Soviet Union had simply opposed Germany from the beginning. But no, the Soviet Union helped start the war in 1939.
The USSR lost 27 million people with tons of help in a war they helped start. Yeah, brilliant.
This is the most biased shit i read in a loooong long time.
Holy shit how ignorant and incompetent can a sentence be?
There are so many books and works from actual historians about soviet tactics and strategies that worked absolutely well. Even Memoirs of German officers mentioned the strength of the soviet soldiers.
Military has to be seen in an objective way. It doesn't matter if you like the nation behind the army.
Damn do you people even think a second before typing nonsense like this?
Bullshit analysis.
SO NICE TO LEARN the solution to positional warfare in ww1 was the Russian invention for the TANK
Russia number one big 🤏🤍💙💔