Well that was a complete mess of poorly quoted mish-mash. I could not tell who you were replying to, or what you were replying to - sometimes it looked like you were arguing with your own quotes. Totally confusing.
I will not do that in the future. I do see it as a distinction with out a difference, though.
Right- NATO’s superiority isn’t really due to the technology or equipment. That’s a mistake people make.
Think of it this way… is there any high tech, expensive stuff that Saudi Arabia’s military lacks? Not really. And yet their military sucks. Hard.
What makes NATO so drastically superior is that NATO spends a LOT of time on the soldiers themselves- training them, learning about HOW to fight, learning what worked and didn’t historically. Setting up command structures that are resilient, teaching officers and NCOs to operate two levels above what their actual rank is, and so forth. NATO invests a whole lot in other aspects that aren’t technological as well- sustaining them in the field/logistics, good medical care, and so forth.
That’s why Ukraine was able to hold off the Russians early on; they took the NATO advice to heart and had embarked some years back on a sort of revitalization program to change up how business was done in the UA- training effective NCOs (with NATO help), getting promising junior officers into higher positions, etc…
And yes, NATO spends a lot of money on technology and advanced equipment, but that’s not what actually wins battles.
Minor counter - it’s not what wins battles when both sides have parity in technology and equipment. Which, arguably, Ukraine and Russia had (lots of handwaving about generalities I fully acknowledge).
If one has sufficient technological advantage, then quality of logistics, training, and tactics can take a backseat. No, you absolutely cannot ignore all of the above, but the old SciFi saw of “he who controls the orbitals…” 
But absolutely you’re right in that having trained, motivated (!) troops that can act independently on a tactical basis to enable the overall strategic goals is huge. And that the intelligence (sat, humint, etc) that enables effect strategic planning is just as important.
Russia fought this war like it was fighting a WW2 era battle, blitzkreig, artillery destruction of population centers, and the like. They seem to have expected the Ukraine to fight back with Russian WW2 tactics of throw troops at the enemy until the Ukraine was wiped out by the enemy.
Didn’t work out that way.
And while it isn’t what WHT indicated in any way, NATO/US aid in intelligence, prior training, as well as material support made sure the Ukraine didn’t have to fight that way.
Just to let you know, an “active participant” in a war is someone directly engaged in combat. That’s codified in international law. I missed where the US is sending troops in to shoot at people in that war.
I think you’re struggling to find ways to communicate what you actually mean here, and that’s frustrating you and everyone else.
I’m just saying that it’s not the gear that really counts, but rather all the other stuff- doctrine, training, motivation, leadership, logistics, etc… I mean if it was the gear, then people would fear the Saudis. But nobody does, because all that other stuff is lacking.
Assuming the rest was equal, then the gear would be the deciding factor. But it almost never is equal. Look at WWII in 1939- you’d assume that the western Europeans would basically have parity on everything. But that wasn’t the case- the Germans had far better leadership and most importantly, doctrine. They even had arguably inferior tanks to the French and British in many ways. Or go back a couple of centuries. British, French and Spanish ships weren’t appreciably different from one another at Trafalgar. What made the difference? Training, leadership and doctrine.
From what I can tell, the Russians assumed they’d repeat Desert Storm/2003 invasion of Iraq against Ukraine- some sort of shock and awe type campaign with paratroopers, armored spearheads, and the like. Which isn’t a bad way to conduct a war, but they also made a lot of assumptions, chief among them that the UA would fold quickly and they wouldn’t have to fight a protracted war.
But the UA didn’t fold, and in fact stopped them cold in a few places while significantly slowing the Russians down everywhere. Then the intrinsic weaknesses of their training scheme, logistics, and doctrine started to be exposed, and they ground to a halt.
When comparing Desert Storm to the current Russo-Ukrainian war you again have to take into account differences in training, military structure, and doctrine. The organization and training of US troops and Russian troops are very different. That would have had at least as much of an impact on the conflict as the gear used.
Absolutely. But that’s basically doctrine and organization which is part of what I’m saying makes the difference upthread.
Here’s a really interesting article on why the Russian BTGs were not right for fighting Ukraine.
Is WHT a US citizen? That statement made me think they were either from Russia or Ukraine.
this statement is ambiguous but would seem to indicate a Russian national (or Russian sympathizer in Ukraine)
Glad I’m not the only one that read it that way.
It is highly likely if Russia had gone all in back in 2014, it would have worked to a tee. The Ukrainian army struggled back then against the Donetsk/Luhansk separatists. Particularly once Russia started feeding the separatists arms and ‘volunteers’, but even before then they were having difficulties. It’s their reformation in the last ~eight year that has brought about this startling reversal. Putin (and to be fair many governments and individuals) thought it would be a cake-walk with at least some reason, despite the warnings of his intelligence operatives.
I’m pretty sure he’s saying that the US is involved and that he’s American:
The US is not an active combatant but we’re supplying training, intelligence, armament, and probably food and other supplies. We probably have intelligence agents in the field and some advisors (though, that’s supposition not fact).
I don’t think we have anything to gain by helping Ukraine or otherwise really care about the country beyond that it’s been attacked. The supposed strategic position of it for NATO seems overstated given the existence of ICBMs, submarines, that NATO has other nations on the border with Russia already, and that - in general - our goal has been to not have to get into a war with anyone and for everyone to give up on 1800s style colonialism and just be happy in their own frickin borders. So to the extent that we are involved, I don’t see any reason to think it’s nefarious but we are certainly involved.
You’re right, the Russians did stomp the Ukrainians pretty hard when they fought them back in 2014.
But they put a lot of effort into modernizing their military and reforming it more or less along the lines of western militaries- NCO training, more effective organizational structure, meritocratic system, and yes, training from western militaries.
Ukraine’s Military Transformation between 2014 and 2022 - Politics Today
Ukraine Transformed Its Own Military, but U.S. Training Still Helps (foreignpolicy.com)
Seems like cruddy intelligence, a lot of hubris, or both on the Russians’ part. It doesn’t seem like anything the Ukrainians did was secret, and shouldn’t have snuck up on them.
Cruddy intelligence, not necessarily. Apparently (I don’t have a cite on hand, but this has been reported on) Russian agents and analysts on the ground were warning this wouldn’t be so easy. Hubris, yes. A metric shit-ton of it.
But also just your normal authoritarian vacuum. The problem is nobody was transmitting the at least decent intelligence to Putin, because everybody is afraid to give him bad/contradictory news. So Putin seems to have stumbled into this disaster partially blind, because no one had the guts to warn him off. No one wants to be an “obstructionist” when said obstructionists are so liable to, purely coincidentally of course, take a nasty tumble out of a window or down some stairs.
True… I meant that whoever was making the decisions didn’t have proper intelligence. While I don’t doubt that Putin wasn’t getting the whole picture, it doesn’t seem like his generals did either.
Unless… they absolutely knew this was likely to be a shit show, and figured that super-fast shock-and-awe type invasion was the best way to try to actually win, if they could get the UA off guard and use their own superior numbers to best effect.
What a horrible position to be put in, if that’s the case.
I wouldn’t doubt it. Opinions differ, but as has been discussed in the main thread briefly some honestly think they came close. If they had taken Zelenskyy, maybe even just forced him to flee Kyiv, a Ukrainian morale collapse might have been possible.
WHT at least lives in the US, unless Russia is using the Pfizer vaccine.
And if he’s Russian or even Ukrainian, why doesn’t he speak Russian?
I’m not a WellHelloThereologist but I’m familiar enough that I’m pretty confident he’s in the US. His posts have always implied as much.
My impression is that most experts, including those within the American government, felt that a Russian victory would be likely within days to weeks, and America did in fact offer to evacuate Zelensky at the time. Zelensky’s “I don’t need a ride, I need ammunition.” response was probably the most critical action in this whole thing.
Training or no training of their military, if Ukraine had had virtually anyone else than that person there at that time, able to present that face to both his country and the world, Russia would have had the cakewalk they had anticipated.
Good intelligence not listened to has pretty much the same effect as bad intelligence.