- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
not really a new tactic. also technically four steps. Attack, block, saturate, assault.
I find it amusing how UK media is now acknowledging that Russian army uses tactics though, and that they’re effective. Gone are the days of them glibly talking about meatwave assaults.
I mean they had to throw in a bit of the meatwave assault line right at the end. Something only meatheads would believe if they had zero comprehension of the necessary training and coordination required to launch, sustain, and follow through with such methodical tactics.
Big “we’re getting the shit kicked out of us but look at how unsophisticated and primitive they are.” energy
💯
I think for a while, the average westerner who thought about such things earnestly thought the Russians were just kinda milling about accidentally near military equipment, unable to be directed due to the Russian brainpan
A liberal wandered in to hexbear recently who claimed Russia does meat wave attacks and after dodging the question a bunch of times coughed up a video of five guys crossing a field on foot as evidence. I think the average westerner still believes that stuff.
The way they pretend like this is fundamentally new is laughable to me. Feels like they’re finally admitting their enemy is competent right as a loss for Ukr is looming in order to save face in defeat. But fundamentally these weapons and their doctrines crystallized like two years ago
I guess they need a bridge from dumb Russian orcs are losing million of people using meatwave assaults against superior NATO tactics to AFU is collapsing and Russian army is bigger than ever.
That’s pretty interesting. It sounds like it’s a tactic that will be difficult to counter. It also sounds horrible. Effectively it’s, kill everyone and then take the land.
Yep, no such a thing as humane warfare
There is much difference between Ukraine war where one civilian die for 50 soldiers and everything west do when destroying entire countries and doubletapping the rescuers. “No humane warfare” is generalisation straight up from “Neither Washington nor Moscow” book.
Also i would argue that stopping the genocide and killing nazis is humane.
There is much difference between Ukraine war where one civilian die for 50 soldiers and everything west do when destroying entire countries and doubletapping the rescuers.
Yes that’s right, and I never said anything that goes against that. You’re calling me a natoid for no reason
No humane warfare" is generalisation straight up from “Neither Washington nor Moscow” book.
I see what you mean, but I think you’re mistaking “morally good” for “humane”. I think it’s more pertinent to accept that it is morally good to do inhumane things to nazis than to say that there’s such a thing as humane killing
My intention was to point out that not because Russia isn’t going out of their ways to win without casualties it means they’re not legitimate, because no country can win a war by having the slightest compassion for their enemies
You’re calling me a natoid for no reason
You said that yourself, not me, and the reason is you using the equivalent of “all lives matter” for warfare out of the blue.
but I think you’re mistaking “morally good” for “humane”
Now you kinda lost me, if you don’t tie “humane” to any kind of morality you could as well argue that everything done by humans is by definition humane so that word would lost its meaning. I called killing nazis humane for the similar reason Lyudmila Pavlichenko said why she was killing them.*
because no country can win a war by having the slightest compassion for their enemies
A lot of countries lost the wars despite having very little of it, like the III Reich and Ukraine who by their own admission taken less prisoners per kills in their offensives than even the most cruel fights against veritably suicidal enemies like the harderst fights on Okinawa. On the other side, a lot of countries won the wars despite having a lot of compassion towards its enemies, USSR for Germans is a glaring example considering this discussion. And Russia for Ukraine too, considering how many Azov bastards they exchanged. And that’s even if we look at combatants, not even civillians.
*Ultimately we have the comparison right before our eyes what happens when nazis get free hand and what happens when they don’t. Palestine and Donbas.
you using the equivalent of “all lives matter” for warfare out of the blue
You’re extrapolating, I just said an army and leadership can’t be humane to the enemy when engaged in a military conflict. I’m actually shrugging off arguments against the SMO
if you don’t tie “humane” to any kind of morality you could as well argue that everything done by humans is by definition humane
Most definitions of “humane” refer precisely to compassion and empathy, while morality way larger philosophical matter. I think we ultimately agree that in a war situation you have to surrender a part of your natural compassion by rationalising that the person against you would do more harm if you spare them
A lot of countries lost the wars despite having very little of it
True but it doesn’t mean the USSR and other allies were “humane”. Less sadistic yes but all the heroes who directly killed at least one fascists lost a bit of their humanity for the good cause.
One day some decently qualified lib will bring you a hard to refute proof that some army you support committed some kind of atrocity. I’m just shrugging that off by saying what do you think, it’s war dude, no one is playing clean
Lol they’re claiming Russia is losing 1000 a day
Textbook attritional warfare stuff. The “112 years to take Ukraine” bullshitters will be VERY quiet in a year or so when the Russian units start realising they can skip most of these steps and walk forwards into kiev
That might happen a lot sooner actually since Russia is now pushing past the heavily fortified industrial areas of Donbas. There aren’t any serious defenses past that. Pokrovosk will be the place to watch in particular, once Russia takes it then it’s open road from there all the way to Dnepr.