"Then in Falluja GI-Joe went door to door and crushed the testicles of every male infant, ask again why Fallujans went full hostile; They call it butt-stocking where one holds the infant and another slams the stock into the groin of the child, obviously the GI-Joe went full 'Talmud' and made sure that Falluja would never again have a male children"
Yes, fraudulent. The leadership in the combined west was dishonest with its populations about the objectives of their wars. Contrast this with the SMO; President Putin has been scrupulously honest and clear about the objectives, and it shows in the Russian publics trust in the leadership. Western leaders blather about values, democracy and freedom, yet support is reliant on high dose propaganda and could be described as fragile (watch support as the real costs come home).
I have no disagreement with you wrt the conduct and course of military operations. Where I take issue is with what you call the common understanding of the "war" as a brilliant achievement of American arms. It wasn't and it isn't. People here don't even think of the 2003 war as conventional war and there is little if any chest thumping about it. What is remembered is the guerilla war against the American occupation and then the Iraqi Civil War that resulted, with America intervening on one side.
The 1991 Operation Desert Storm, on the other hand, is remembered for precisely all the things you say about Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is helped, in part, by Chuck Horner's book (ghost written by Tom Clancy), in which Horner recounts the campaign to gain air dominance over Iraq. Even here, it is fairly well remembered by people who pay attention, that this was a battle between two completely different adversaries. People do wonder -- myself included -- why it is that Russia has been at it a year and still cannot at will bomb Ukrainian trains hauling Leopard Tanks using fixed wing aircraft. People do not understand why Russia remains unable to shut down Ukraine's ability to move troops or equipment anywhere. I haven't seen a well written piece that describes how difficult it is to degrade Ukraine's air defense assets, or what Ukraine has done to evade Russian attempts to stifle troop and weapon movement.
Americans do fail to compare America's inability to shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Russia's inability to shut down the Zelensky trail from Poland to Donbass. Everybody seems to have forgotten about Vietnam. each for his own reasons.
Yes you're right, the 1991 war at least had one or two real 'battles' like 73 Easting. I focused on the 2003 war because the 20th anniversary is coming up in a few days.
I have explained many of the things you asked in smaller sections of posts but maybe I'll do a whole post about it sometime. But with that said a few key things:
1. it's a given that US airpower/airforce is superior to that of the Russian one. No one is challenging that. The well known notion is Russia is a land/artillery power that during the cold war invested everything into its artillery/land forces, while US is an airpower that invested everything into its airforce and has comparatively almost no artillery compared to Russia. For instance US basically just has 1 MLRS system (m270/himars are same thing), one real towed arty and one spg (Paladin). Russia on the other hand has nearly 10+ different MLRS systems, 10+ different spgs, probably 5-7 different towed systems etc., it's not even a comparison.
In a given war between the two, the US airforce could dominate the Russian one, but the Russian ground army would dominate the US land forces, it's that simple. (followed by the Russian AD blowing the US airforce out of the sky).
"Coalition air and Special Ops units claimed the destruction of over 100 Scud launchers by the end of the war, and many operational histories repeat the claims of efficient Scud destruction. But when the Pentagon did its own postwar assessment, it came to a very different conclusion: it could not confirm the destruction of even one of the mobile Scud launchers."
3. why the peerless US airpower was only able to degrade Serbian AD by 50% after 3 months of 24/7 bombing and only kill ~1000 total soldiers and less than 100 total tanks? It's a really shocking pathetic showing. They dropped over 50,000 munitions, if you divide 100 tanks into that you get an appalling rate of success. Russian airforce has surprisingly proved far more *efficient* than the US one. Strange, no?
And yes as you mentioned, why when faced with a peer enemy the US lost 10,000 aircraft. Did you know Russia's *total* aircraft losses in the 10 year afghanistan war was about 600+? So US and Allies' 12,500 lost aircraft in Vietnam is 2100% higher than Russia's afghan losses...quite shocking
What you say obviously is true. So it isn't very interesting to compare Russian air power with American air power. What I do not understand (and I don't mean this rhetorically) is why Russian air power hasn't yet degraded Ukrainian air defense into oblivion, allowing interdiction of Ukraine's logistic chain and close tactical air support of ground forces. I also don't get how Ukraine seems able to move men and materiel around Ukraine seemingly at will. I apologize if this is off topic, but this is what most befuddles me about how things have been going in Ukraine.
Russia is allowing Ukraine to move it's forces around for the purpose of "de- militarizing" Ukrainian forces and equipment. Why destroy stuff hundreds of miles away, when Ukraine will waste time, money, effort and fuel to haul it to the front where Russia can use this priceless on-the-job training exercise to bring hundreds of thousands of Russian fighting forces up to journeyman experience and qualifications. They might need those skills later for further "de-Nazification", somewhere,
noamsayn?... translation: Do you know what I am saying? End of effort at Ebonics, geezer humor.
The war which established the perception of American military supremacy was actually the Gulf War (1991). Against a battle-hardened Iraqi army (post Iran-Iraq), the US-led coalition won a stunning victory with minimal losses
There was a lot different back then - that war was when Precision became part of the lexicon. The tomahawk, JDAM, and other guided munitions saw their debut. The US military as well was still at its peak anti-Soviet dispensation, and trained + equipped accordingly. Still, I don't think anyone expected such a one-sided defeat of the Iraqi army. American armor, particularly on the Abrams, had a very significant advantage and was more or less impenetrable by anything the Iraqis had. And the scale of planning, execution, and frankly competence was really something to behold.
The 2nd Iraq war was against an Iraq that was a shadow of its former military self - but still, getting the vast majority of the Iraqi defenders to lay down their arms just because they were paid off is a stunning victory in of itself. Why sacrifice life? Setting aside the propaganda - I'd rather Iraqi soldiers surrendering than being blown to pieces by 30mm fire.
I still remember stories of Challenger tanks and Abrams tanks taking multiple (37 to the Challenger) RPG hits and still not being penetrated. My sense is that Western tank armor had a period of dominance - 15 or 20 years - where nothing could really kill it
That changed in 2006 when Hezbollah deployed tandem charge RPG's against the Israeli Merkava, and turned them into targets again. I suspect the current balance remains against armor for the moment, just due to the sophistication and penetration of modern AT weapons.
You know, this mirrors WW2 a bit, doesn't it? When German Tiger tanks first emerged onto the battlefield they were feared due to their perceived invulnerability. A short time later - not so much. But the legend lives on, till today.
Back to 2003. The Iraq war was not just a sham, but a crime. That country, which in the 70's had a healthcare system that rivaled France, world-class universities, and was one of the cultural centers of the Middle East has been sent back 200 years, and today in 2023 remains a broken nation.
When US forces are eventually committed to Ukraine (does anyone doubt it?), we will see what they can do. My sense is that some illusions will be shattered, but the battlefield is where truths are told.
in 1991, the Iraqi army was to a certain degree "battle hardened", but to a much higher degree "attrited" and "tired of war" - which was the reason why the Iraq-Iran war ended
Battle hardened? The Iraq army just finished a ten year war against Iran in which 1-5% , depending on source, of it's population died. It would have been like the USA attacking Germany in 1920. The Iraqi army was using locally assembled outdated Soviet tanks with firing home made ammo. Most serious analysts put the actual troop strength in Kuwait at around 200k -less than 50% of what pentagon propaganda puts it. The USA alone had 700k troops attacking. You puff up the Iraqi army like a rice crispy but there was very little of substance to it.
Lots of people predicted an easy war: James dunnigan, most Israeli generals, Egyptian and Syrian generals in the coalition and even a few USMC officers within the attack force. Drop the cartoon msm understanding of this war.
The competence was much lower than you realize. Read "the generals war" by Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon. From hw bush on down the planning and much of the execution was a shitshow and only worked because Iraq was so vastly overmatched.
"you puff up the iraqi army but there was little substance to it"? Is this after staying in ur cozy room and reading a couple of non arab writers books?
The battle hardened is sth not the russians nor surely european/american spoiled brats would understand. The Iraqi army fought an 8 year war with a neighbor that has 4 times the area and 3-4 times the population with support coming to both sides. True we lost alot of our population and 2years after the end of the war we went against 30 countries with advanced technology in which alot of details took place that obviously u have no idea from whatever the hell u come from that made it look like the Iraqi army lost the war. Im only gna say that after 40 days of non stop heavy bombing by the coalition, the army was still able to fight and barely any casualties took place but then politics took place and playing with american army (as europeans) is basically playing with children. No real men and no honor. And u can see pictures of the road of death betwen Kurwait and Iraq that should give u a hint. Eventually though that gulf war was ended by Bush senior not the Iraqi side (u can also do some research about why is that).
Theres alot more to say, but what i wanna specifically mention here, is you should leave Iraq outta your "smart analyses" and how you think you know it all when it comes to Iraq just to say the American army is no real thing. Obviously I dont give a damn about the American army, but since they lost alot of battles in Iraq that doesnt mean they are weak, it means the Iraqis are hell stronger than you would ever know DESPITE the casualties, death and destruction that the country went through all those years.
They already did, back in Korea and Vietnam. That's why they got much more cunning, why fight when you get just pay off or threaten into compliance? The rest can be handled by their massive PR machine like Hollywood and MSM, creating the narrative of a Just and Benevolent World Government, with the White House as its administrator.
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Simplicius
What's an interesting contrast in the Ukraine situation; the US has to pay Ukraine elites NOT to surrender to Russia, and use their men as human drones to bleed as much Russian blood as possible. Untimely this is a civil Slavic war, engineered and payed by Western interests. If one was to compare it to history, it would be if the Confederates leaders in the US Civil War were payed by the British, French, Prussian to bleed the Yenkees to the last man.
What you are describing is the advantage of soft power. Ukrainian (and Russian) oligarchs want approval of western oligarchs, they want their kids to attend western universities, they purchase the sorts of art objects that will win them praise from western cultural institutions, they own vacation properties and trophy businesses in the west.
Good context. Of course, none of this means the US Army is particularly bad! War is difficult and all armies encounter major problems. Various of my (now deceased and much older) male relatives served in the British military in WW2 and just after. Their stories of military incompetence were legion. I was also told that it was standard practice in the war for over keen officers to suffer “accidents”. Snipers who attempted surrender were apparently also just shot out of hand. How true all that was is unclear to me but we have a habit of forgetting these things and then over indexing on specific incidents with respect to both sides in the Ukraine conflict.
Useful to be reminded that much of the real fighting in the Iraq (and Iraq) insurgency was carried out by local troops. Just as it was in Vietnam. They also took by far the overwhelming majority of the casualties. Hollywood rarely portrays this. The Netflix film Faisal seems to be one of the few exceptions. The U.S. SOP of fighting proxy wars is clearly not a new one though and seems to have been the predominant model since Korea with respect to casualties and deployment. Also puts into context all the false reports that Wagner PMC is entirely made up of convicts!
yeah that's actually pretty much my whole point is to show that, having some supply issues, getting ambushed here and there doesn't mean you're a terrible army it happens to everyone. If the US was fighting in Ukraine in place of Russia they'd be having all the same issues. Sure they'd do better in some aspects but they'd also do worse in others.
But the anti-Russian armchair generals think that US examples are always sterling while Russian is backwards for their perceived failings and it's not the case. US just stage-manages their wars really well, then uses the military-industrial-media-complex to brush the bloopers under the rug
I realise. The US / west is unsurpassed when it comes to creating PR / propaganda narratives. That is for sure. And western populations have a naive trust in “democratic” governments so believe what they are told. After all, many people think that the USSR only won on the Eastern Front in WW2 because of US supplied trucks and so forth.
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Simplicius
this is interesting, "the USSR only stood a change because of American weapons" is something i have seen constantly brought up in every discussion about WW2, at least ones where Americans are commenting on it. And yet back in the day it was an American history professor that thought me how much a bad misconception that was, the Soviets barely even used any of the US and British equipment, for one thing it was a bit late in the war, and they didn't really know how to operate them in the first place so they just let them say in storage.
I would recommend you reading "Stalin's War". The US was sending supplies to the Soviet Union even before Pearl Harbor and would not have survived in 1941. Stalin tried to minimize how much he needed the US supplies.
I think I wrote about it in an earlier article, but basically Lend Lease was a bit of a scam. First of all USSR wasn't even the biggest beneficiary, they only got about half of what UK got from US in Lend Lease aid. Secondly and most importantly, as you stated, Lend Lease didn't even KICK IN to full gear until 1943 and 1944. In 1941 only 2% of Lend Lease had arrived by the end of the year, yet USSR had already broken Germany's back at the battle of Moscow in december and from that point on Germany was basically in retreat. Then in 1942, the year of Stalingrad, another paltry 14% of Lend Lease came. You can see for yourself here: https://i.imgur.com/jn3iVV8.png
Magnificent piece! And less we forget, the U.S. Army "won" against the Confederacy only after achieving 3-1 superiority and a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks and otherwise accept the brutal mathematics of attrition. And, of course, the great triumphs of Sheridan, Sherman and Banks against unarmed women, children, old people, barns and livestock in the Shenandoah, Georgia and Louisiana.
It's also worth noting that the Southern soldiers fought to defend their homes, hearths and families. American soldiers otherwise have been mercenaries deployed in the interest of some ideological crusade. (the wretched Victor D Hanson describes the various armies deployed by the US from the Civil War on as "ideological armies" fired with the power of ideas, which is ridiculous.) From that perspective it's not surprising that they're not gung-ho for the Kagan cult.
The South was defeated but would not admit defeat. The war in the West was won, and the South could not win, yet continued to fight. Sherman's March to the Sea actually was pretty safe for the woman and children, and he harshly punished anyone stole or killed or raped.
The South failed before the war had even started, as the South lacked the industry and infrastructure to fight. Most slaveowners were leveraged to the hilt as bad as Silicon Valley Bank, and any decline in the price of cotton was going to send many of them into bankruptcy. Given that the Brits had begun getting cotton from Egypt and India, Southern cotton was going to take a fall independent of any war, and slavery was going to take a huge economic hit.
Moreover, the South believed its own lies that the North was soft, notwithstanding that Northerners, especially in the Midwest, had built their own farms and worked with their hands while the Southerners largely left hard work to slaves. There are many reports of Southerners deserting once they were told they were going to be infantry rather than cavalry.
The South had been deluded by preachers and newspaper men, and a misplaced faith in England and France, that they would support the South against the North. The South was also very aware that it was losing its political control over the country. Even with Lincoln's election, the South could have found accommodation with the changes and agreed to an end of the expansion of slavery and a gradual phasing out.
Sure, there were Northern abolitionists, but they were a fraction of the total. The ideological fervor was mostly in the South, and it was Southerners who the deluded "ideological army".
Nice recap of the basic NeoCon/public school syllabus, but at the end of the day, the Southerner soldiers fought to defend their farms from the mercenary, plundering, murdering hordes of the US Army (one third of which was made up of foreigners by 1864). And every grim prediction about the consequences of a Yankee victory came true. The "great US victory" in that war of conquest and plunder is the proximate cause of the utter sh*tshow in which the world finds itself today.
No. Again, get out off the myths and get into reality. Oh, Southerner men fled in advance of Sherman, leaving their women and children. Sherman didn't need to fight, but needed to break the will of the South.
The Lost Cause is so powerful for the South because it remains too difficult to accept that their ancestors were deceived into fighting an unwinnable war.
For the most part Grand didn’t slaughter troops except once. He did know that he was fighting a weaker foe so he would win a war of attrition. Sherman wanted the Georgians who supplied goods to the south to feel the effects of war. I think he really did want to punish the South Carolinian’s since they initiated the war. Sherman was president of a college in La when the war started. He told the southerners that they would loose due to industrial production and population. He then left for the north. He famously told the mayor of Atlanta ( paraphrased )that war was a gruesome business but that it couldn’t be changed.
Interesting how US Grant gad consistently lower casualty rates in his battles than Lee did in his. Grant constantly looked for the flank. Read "Grant and Lee" by general Fuller. But yeah, your casual regurgitation of southern chauvanism is pretty enchanting.
I wasn’t talking about casualty rates, was I? No, I was talking about the criminal behavior of Grant and Sherman’s rabble and the absolute horror of an empire they helped birth. Go watch Hannity and have your faith in the founding fathers restored.
And I quote, "a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks."
You clearly were talking about casualty rates and lack of tactical skill. You clearly haven't studied a single one of Grants battles. He maneuvered Lee and the south into surrender.
Maybe drop your tradition of deep fried southern bigotry and weirdo leftist assumptions about what I believe and what media I consume. You clearly have no actual analysis and only vitriolic ad hominems that drives off people who are otherwise sympathetic to your cause. Enjoy your bitter world of loneliness and intellectual impotence, bro.
So where did I mention “rate”? Grant’s casualty rate going to be lower because he had a larger army and more in the “tail” (like those musicians he threw into Cold Harbor). So mathematically of course it’s a lower rate. Have you ever heard of something called “combat effectiveness”? Look it up. The American rabble doesn’t show up that well.
As far as the worst butcher of the war: that’s John Bell Hood, for Franklin. Worst general. Probably Bragg. Grant had his talents but he was not some sort of “American Ulysses” as you patriots claim.
And on the subject of America, how’s your grand republic working out? I know, it must be painful to have the exceptional nation revealed as the degenerate toilet it is.
And I stand by everything I said about your precious Sam. Sieges and starvation. Yeah, that’s some maneuvering there. Now go watch Hannity.
When this war ends (hopefully soon and with good terms for Russia), we will need some books stating the truth (why and how it began, how it was fought) so we do not forget it.
Hope there are some writers willing to face the challenge (wink, wink XD)
My prediction is that you are never going to see units from the country formerly known as the United States. And the reason is they know they are a paper tiger that will get beat like a step-child.
AINO kit is crap. It is expensive crap but crap nonetheless. An Abrams is just a 70 ton paper weight without a huge logistics tail.
Another prediction. You will never see the F35 in combat because 1) it is crap and 2) the cowards that run AINO dont want to risk losing their shitty wunderwaffen texhnology.
This great essay details the degree to which AINO (America In Name Only) forces will never be able to fight a near peer. AINO can barely feed its high heel wearing soldierS.
I dont think the Empire of Lies know how much it is hated around the world It appears the hatred of the pedophile friendly Empire id Lies is reconciling Shia and Sunni Muslims. Your average over-fed, over-stimulated, under-educated, just wanna grill AINO idiot has no idea what the Sunni-ShiA schism is much less even being able to grasp the ramifications of the end of the schism.
Egypt and Syria are reconciling. AINO doesnt have allies but vassal. And it looks like the entirety of the world is uniting to maybe fight it.
Thanks for your meticulous research displayed in this post.
For the past year I have asked people to engage in a thought experiment where it was our military fighting the Ukrainians rather that the Russians. Most asked have a rather inflated view of our ability to establish no-fly zones on a whim. They have not contemplated that Ukraine's S-300 air defense system is far better than anything we have deployed on our own shores, and for that matter, anything we deploy elsewhere.
And when it comes to Russia's S-400 and the S-500 yet to come, forget about it!
It is legitimate to suspect such "bribes" were carried-out in Ukraine 2022 as well, but that one side outbid the other.
- Was Kiev supposed to be delivered as Bagdad was, with a short SMO in view as plan A?
- What was actually the role of once negociator Denys Kiryeyev?
Russian Spy or Ukrainian Hero? The Strange Death of Denys Kiryeyev
Hours before Russia first sent troops into Ukraine, Mr. Kiryeyev warned of Moscow’s plan to capture Kyiv. Days later, he was killed by security agents.
Yeah but we successfully killed a half million Iraqi children. In the words of the immortal Madeline is Albright, now burning in hell for eternity, "We think it was worth it."
I remember listening to navy SEAL Jocko Willink talking about how in the battle of Ramati, on one night raid on a target, they blew the door and literally threw the Iraqi soldiers into the building.
And these were guys who were reluctant to have Iraqis around, because of their poor training...
"Then in Falluja GI-Joe went door to door and crushed the testicles of every male infant, ask again why Fallujans went full hostile; They call it butt-stocking where one holds the infant and another slams the stock into the groin of the child, obviously the GI-Joe went full 'Talmud' and made sure that Falluja would never again have a male children"
Who says this happened? Never heard of it.
Blackwater was an enemy force attacking the guerrillas.
That movie does not discuss crushing the testicles of babies.
The IRAQ war was 100% fraudulent, from beginning to end. Continues US presence in Iraq, and for that matter Syria, is 100% fraudulent.
Yes, fraudulent. The leadership in the combined west was dishonest with its populations about the objectives of their wars. Contrast this with the SMO; President Putin has been scrupulously honest and clear about the objectives, and it shows in the Russian publics trust in the leadership. Western leaders blather about values, democracy and freedom, yet support is reliant on high dose propaganda and could be described as fragile (watch support as the real costs come home).
Putin is the best actor and orator.
I have no disagreement with you wrt the conduct and course of military operations. Where I take issue is with what you call the common understanding of the "war" as a brilliant achievement of American arms. It wasn't and it isn't. People here don't even think of the 2003 war as conventional war and there is little if any chest thumping about it. What is remembered is the guerilla war against the American occupation and then the Iraqi Civil War that resulted, with America intervening on one side.
The 1991 Operation Desert Storm, on the other hand, is remembered for precisely all the things you say about Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is helped, in part, by Chuck Horner's book (ghost written by Tom Clancy), in which Horner recounts the campaign to gain air dominance over Iraq. Even here, it is fairly well remembered by people who pay attention, that this was a battle between two completely different adversaries. People do wonder -- myself included -- why it is that Russia has been at it a year and still cannot at will bomb Ukrainian trains hauling Leopard Tanks using fixed wing aircraft. People do not understand why Russia remains unable to shut down Ukraine's ability to move troops or equipment anywhere. I haven't seen a well written piece that describes how difficult it is to degrade Ukraine's air defense assets, or what Ukraine has done to evade Russian attempts to stifle troop and weapon movement.
Americans do fail to compare America's inability to shut down the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Russia's inability to shut down the Zelensky trail from Poland to Donbass. Everybody seems to have forgotten about Vietnam. each for his own reasons.
Yes you're right, the 1991 war at least had one or two real 'battles' like 73 Easting. I focused on the 2003 war because the 20th anniversary is coming up in a few days.
I have explained many of the things you asked in smaller sections of posts but maybe I'll do a whole post about it sometime. But with that said a few key things:
1. it's a given that US airpower/airforce is superior to that of the Russian one. No one is challenging that. The well known notion is Russia is a land/artillery power that during the cold war invested everything into its artillery/land forces, while US is an airpower that invested everything into its airforce and has comparatively almost no artillery compared to Russia. For instance US basically just has 1 MLRS system (m270/himars are same thing), one real towed arty and one spg (Paladin). Russia on the other hand has nearly 10+ different MLRS systems, 10+ different spgs, probably 5-7 different towed systems etc., it's not even a comparison.
In a given war between the two, the US airforce could dominate the Russian one, but the Russian ground army would dominate the US land forces, it's that simple. (followed by the Russian AD blowing the US airforce out of the sky).
2. have you ever seen a report written on why the US with its allegedly inimitable ISR/airpower was unable to find a single scud during 'the great scud hunt' of the Gulf War? https://warisboring.com/what-the-great-scud-hunt-tells-about-a-war-with-north-korea/
"Coalition air and Special Ops units claimed the destruction of over 100 Scud launchers by the end of the war, and many operational histories repeat the claims of efficient Scud destruction. But when the Pentagon did its own postwar assessment, it came to a very different conclusion: it could not confirm the destruction of even one of the mobile Scud launchers."
3. why the peerless US airpower was only able to degrade Serbian AD by 50% after 3 months of 24/7 bombing and only kill ~1000 total soldiers and less than 100 total tanks? It's a really shocking pathetic showing. They dropped over 50,000 munitions, if you divide 100 tanks into that you get an appalling rate of success. Russian airforce has surprisingly proved far more *efficient* than the US one. Strange, no?
And yes as you mentioned, why when faced with a peer enemy the US lost 10,000 aircraft. Did you know Russia's *total* aircraft losses in the 10 year afghanistan war was about 600+? So US and Allies' 12,500 lost aircraft in Vietnam is 2100% higher than Russia's afghan losses...quite shocking
What you say obviously is true. So it isn't very interesting to compare Russian air power with American air power. What I do not understand (and I don't mean this rhetorically) is why Russian air power hasn't yet degraded Ukrainian air defense into oblivion, allowing interdiction of Ukraine's logistic chain and close tactical air support of ground forces. I also don't get how Ukraine seems able to move men and materiel around Ukraine seemingly at will. I apologize if this is off topic, but this is what most befuddles me about how things have been going in Ukraine.
Written some time ago, wonder if your opinion has modified since then given how the RF has upped it's air war
Because of the modernity of Nato ISR, what with Geosynchronous orbit satellites being but one of the factors.
Russia is allowing Ukraine to move it's forces around for the purpose of "de- militarizing" Ukrainian forces and equipment. Why destroy stuff hundreds of miles away, when Ukraine will waste time, money, effort and fuel to haul it to the front where Russia can use this priceless on-the-job training exercise to bring hundreds of thousands of Russian fighting forces up to journeyman experience and qualifications. They might need those skills later for further "de-Nazification", somewhere,
noamsayn?... translation: Do you know what I am saying? End of effort at Ebonics, geezer humor.
The war which established the perception of American military supremacy was actually the Gulf War (1991). Against a battle-hardened Iraqi army (post Iran-Iraq), the US-led coalition won a stunning victory with minimal losses
There was a lot different back then - that war was when Precision became part of the lexicon. The tomahawk, JDAM, and other guided munitions saw their debut. The US military as well was still at its peak anti-Soviet dispensation, and trained + equipped accordingly. Still, I don't think anyone expected such a one-sided defeat of the Iraqi army. American armor, particularly on the Abrams, had a very significant advantage and was more or less impenetrable by anything the Iraqis had. And the scale of planning, execution, and frankly competence was really something to behold.
The 2nd Iraq war was against an Iraq that was a shadow of its former military self - but still, getting the vast majority of the Iraqi defenders to lay down their arms just because they were paid off is a stunning victory in of itself. Why sacrifice life? Setting aside the propaganda - I'd rather Iraqi soldiers surrendering than being blown to pieces by 30mm fire.
I still remember stories of Challenger tanks and Abrams tanks taking multiple (37 to the Challenger) RPG hits and still not being penetrated. My sense is that Western tank armor had a period of dominance - 15 or 20 years - where nothing could really kill it
That changed in 2006 when Hezbollah deployed tandem charge RPG's against the Israeli Merkava, and turned them into targets again. I suspect the current balance remains against armor for the moment, just due to the sophistication and penetration of modern AT weapons.
You know, this mirrors WW2 a bit, doesn't it? When German Tiger tanks first emerged onto the battlefield they were feared due to their perceived invulnerability. A short time later - not so much. But the legend lives on, till today.
Back to 2003. The Iraq war was not just a sham, but a crime. That country, which in the 70's had a healthcare system that rivaled France, world-class universities, and was one of the cultural centers of the Middle East has been sent back 200 years, and today in 2023 remains a broken nation.
When US forces are eventually committed to Ukraine (does anyone doubt it?), we will see what they can do. My sense is that some illusions will be shattered, but the battlefield is where truths are told.
in 1991, the Iraqi army was to a certain degree "battle hardened", but to a much higher degree "attrited" and "tired of war" - which was the reason why the Iraq-Iran war ended
Battle hardened? The Iraq army just finished a ten year war against Iran in which 1-5% , depending on source, of it's population died. It would have been like the USA attacking Germany in 1920. The Iraqi army was using locally assembled outdated Soviet tanks with firing home made ammo. Most serious analysts put the actual troop strength in Kuwait at around 200k -less than 50% of what pentagon propaganda puts it. The USA alone had 700k troops attacking. You puff up the Iraqi army like a rice crispy but there was very little of substance to it.
Lots of people predicted an easy war: James dunnigan, most Israeli generals, Egyptian and Syrian generals in the coalition and even a few USMC officers within the attack force. Drop the cartoon msm understanding of this war.
The competence was much lower than you realize. Read "the generals war" by Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon. From hw bush on down the planning and much of the execution was a shitshow and only worked because Iraq was so vastly overmatched.
"you puff up the iraqi army but there was little substance to it"? Is this after staying in ur cozy room and reading a couple of non arab writers books?
The battle hardened is sth not the russians nor surely european/american spoiled brats would understand. The Iraqi army fought an 8 year war with a neighbor that has 4 times the area and 3-4 times the population with support coming to both sides. True we lost alot of our population and 2years after the end of the war we went against 30 countries with advanced technology in which alot of details took place that obviously u have no idea from whatever the hell u come from that made it look like the Iraqi army lost the war. Im only gna say that after 40 days of non stop heavy bombing by the coalition, the army was still able to fight and barely any casualties took place but then politics took place and playing with american army (as europeans) is basically playing with children. No real men and no honor. And u can see pictures of the road of death betwen Kurwait and Iraq that should give u a hint. Eventually though that gulf war was ended by Bush senior not the Iraqi side (u can also do some research about why is that).
Theres alot more to say, but what i wanna specifically mention here, is you should leave Iraq outta your "smart analyses" and how you think you know it all when it comes to Iraq just to say the American army is no real thing. Obviously I dont give a damn about the American army, but since they lost alot of battles in Iraq that doesnt mean they are weak, it means the Iraqis are hell stronger than you would ever know DESPITE the casualties, death and destruction that the country went through all those years.
Superb summary. I almost feel sorry for them, when they have to face a tier one enemy themselves the Americans will learn a brutally, bloody lesson.
They already did, back in Korea and Vietnam. That's why they got much more cunning, why fight when you get just pay off or threaten into compliance? The rest can be handled by their massive PR machine like Hollywood and MSM, creating the narrative of a Just and Benevolent World Government, with the White House as its administrator.
But, but, but...they absolutely kicked butt in Grenada!
What's an interesting contrast in the Ukraine situation; the US has to pay Ukraine elites NOT to surrender to Russia, and use their men as human drones to bleed as much Russian blood as possible. Untimely this is a civil Slavic war, engineered and payed by Western interests. If one was to compare it to history, it would be if the Confederates leaders in the US Civil War were payed by the British, French, Prussian to bleed the Yenkees to the last man.
ha that's a funny juxtaposition indeed
What you are describing is the advantage of soft power. Ukrainian (and Russian) oligarchs want approval of western oligarchs, they want their kids to attend western universities, they purchase the sorts of art objects that will win them praise from western cultural institutions, they own vacation properties and trophy businesses in the west.
Good context. Of course, none of this means the US Army is particularly bad! War is difficult and all armies encounter major problems. Various of my (now deceased and much older) male relatives served in the British military in WW2 and just after. Their stories of military incompetence were legion. I was also told that it was standard practice in the war for over keen officers to suffer “accidents”. Snipers who attempted surrender were apparently also just shot out of hand. How true all that was is unclear to me but we have a habit of forgetting these things and then over indexing on specific incidents with respect to both sides in the Ukraine conflict.
Useful to be reminded that much of the real fighting in the Iraq (and Iraq) insurgency was carried out by local troops. Just as it was in Vietnam. They also took by far the overwhelming majority of the casualties. Hollywood rarely portrays this. The Netflix film Faisal seems to be one of the few exceptions. The U.S. SOP of fighting proxy wars is clearly not a new one though and seems to have been the predominant model since Korea with respect to casualties and deployment. Also puts into context all the false reports that Wagner PMC is entirely made up of convicts!
yeah that's actually pretty much my whole point is to show that, having some supply issues, getting ambushed here and there doesn't mean you're a terrible army it happens to everyone. If the US was fighting in Ukraine in place of Russia they'd be having all the same issues. Sure they'd do better in some aspects but they'd also do worse in others.
But the anti-Russian armchair generals think that US examples are always sterling while Russian is backwards for their perceived failings and it's not the case. US just stage-manages their wars really well, then uses the military-industrial-media-complex to brush the bloopers under the rug
I realise. The US / west is unsurpassed when it comes to creating PR / propaganda narratives. That is for sure. And western populations have a naive trust in “democratic” governments so believe what they are told. After all, many people think that the USSR only won on the Eastern Front in WW2 because of US supplied trucks and so forth.
this is interesting, "the USSR only stood a change because of American weapons" is something i have seen constantly brought up in every discussion about WW2, at least ones where Americans are commenting on it. And yet back in the day it was an American history professor that thought me how much a bad misconception that was, the Soviets barely even used any of the US and British equipment, for one thing it was a bit late in the war, and they didn't really know how to operate them in the first place so they just let them say in storage.
I would recommend you reading "Stalin's War". The US was sending supplies to the Soviet Union even before Pearl Harbor and would not have survived in 1941. Stalin tried to minimize how much he needed the US supplies.
I think I wrote about it in an earlier article, but basically Lend Lease was a bit of a scam. First of all USSR wasn't even the biggest beneficiary, they only got about half of what UK got from US in Lend Lease aid. Secondly and most importantly, as you stated, Lend Lease didn't even KICK IN to full gear until 1943 and 1944. In 1941 only 2% of Lend Lease had arrived by the end of the year, yet USSR had already broken Germany's back at the battle of Moscow in december and from that point on Germany was basically in retreat. Then in 1942, the year of Stalingrad, another paltry 14% of Lend Lease came. You can see for yourself here: https://i.imgur.com/jn3iVV8.png
We can all agree it is in the environment of war where sociopaths are quite at liberty to
pleasure themselves.
However, what is appalling and more to the point made to me by Simplicius is the United State self righteous exceptionalism.
Contrary to popular belief we are NOT and by far that nation which is “God blessed forever.”
Self praise is the worse form of praise, truthfully it’s not genuine praise at all.
In my estimation, it’s a storm cloud I see gathering headed towards our nation currently about the size of a”man’s hand.”
Looks like a storm and I don’t think it’s full of blessing...
Keep in mind Falluja was no battle. Rather it was a massacre against what in essence was an unarmed population.
The Butcher of Fallujah, Jim Molan, has recently died of cancer. It is hoped by many that he suffered greatly.
Excellent post, super illuminating. Subscribed and happy I did.
Magnificent piece! And less we forget, the U.S. Army "won" against the Confederacy only after achieving 3-1 superiority and a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks and otherwise accept the brutal mathematics of attrition. And, of course, the great triumphs of Sheridan, Sherman and Banks against unarmed women, children, old people, barns and livestock in the Shenandoah, Georgia and Louisiana.
It's also worth noting that the Southern soldiers fought to defend their homes, hearths and families. American soldiers otherwise have been mercenaries deployed in the interest of some ideological crusade. (the wretched Victor D Hanson describes the various armies deployed by the US from the Civil War on as "ideological armies" fired with the power of ideas, which is ridiculous.) From that perspective it's not surprising that they're not gung-ho for the Kagan cult.
The South was defeated but would not admit defeat. The war in the West was won, and the South could not win, yet continued to fight. Sherman's March to the Sea actually was pretty safe for the woman and children, and he harshly punished anyone stole or killed or raped.
The South failed before the war had even started, as the South lacked the industry and infrastructure to fight. Most slaveowners were leveraged to the hilt as bad as Silicon Valley Bank, and any decline in the price of cotton was going to send many of them into bankruptcy. Given that the Brits had begun getting cotton from Egypt and India, Southern cotton was going to take a fall independent of any war, and slavery was going to take a huge economic hit.
Moreover, the South believed its own lies that the North was soft, notwithstanding that Northerners, especially in the Midwest, had built their own farms and worked with their hands while the Southerners largely left hard work to slaves. There are many reports of Southerners deserting once they were told they were going to be infantry rather than cavalry.
The South had been deluded by preachers and newspaper men, and a misplaced faith in England and France, that they would support the South against the North. The South was also very aware that it was losing its political control over the country. Even with Lincoln's election, the South could have found accommodation with the changes and agreed to an end of the expansion of slavery and a gradual phasing out.
Sure, there were Northern abolitionists, but they were a fraction of the total. The ideological fervor was mostly in the South, and it was Southerners who the deluded "ideological army".
Nice recap of the basic NeoCon/public school syllabus, but at the end of the day, the Southerner soldiers fought to defend their farms from the mercenary, plundering, murdering hordes of the US Army (one third of which was made up of foreigners by 1864). And every grim prediction about the consequences of a Yankee victory came true. The "great US victory" in that war of conquest and plunder is the proximate cause of the utter sh*tshow in which the world finds itself today.
No. Again, get out off the myths and get into reality. Oh, Southerner men fled in advance of Sherman, leaving their women and children. Sherman didn't need to fight, but needed to break the will of the South.
The Lost Cause is so powerful for the South because it remains too difficult to accept that their ancestors were deceived into fighting an unwinnable war.
Whatever you say, patriot. And how's that "grand Republic" working out for you?
The “civil war” was America’s first war of aggression. The south was brutally annexed and never reconstructed
For the most part Grand didn’t slaughter troops except once. He did know that he was fighting a weaker foe so he would win a war of attrition. Sherman wanted the Georgians who supplied goods to the south to feel the effects of war. I think he really did want to punish the South Carolinian’s since they initiated the war. Sherman was president of a college in La when the war started. He told the southerners that they would loose due to industrial production and population. He then left for the north. He famously told the mayor of Atlanta ( paraphrased )that war was a gruesome business but that it couldn’t be changed.
Interesting how US Grant gad consistently lower casualty rates in his battles than Lee did in his. Grant constantly looked for the flank. Read "Grant and Lee" by general Fuller. But yeah, your casual regurgitation of southern chauvanism is pretty enchanting.
I wasn’t talking about casualty rates, was I? No, I was talking about the criminal behavior of Grant and Sherman’s rabble and the absolute horror of an empire they helped birth. Go watch Hannity and have your faith in the founding fathers restored.
Yeah, I’ve read Fuller. Have you?
And I quote, "a general was found (Grant) callous enough to hurl conscripts against Southern breastworks."
You clearly were talking about casualty rates and lack of tactical skill. You clearly haven't studied a single one of Grants battles. He maneuvered Lee and the south into surrender.
Maybe drop your tradition of deep fried southern bigotry and weirdo leftist assumptions about what I believe and what media I consume. You clearly have no actual analysis and only vitriolic ad hominems that drives off people who are otherwise sympathetic to your cause. Enjoy your bitter world of loneliness and intellectual impotence, bro.
So where did I mention “rate”? Grant’s casualty rate going to be lower because he had a larger army and more in the “tail” (like those musicians he threw into Cold Harbor). So mathematically of course it’s a lower rate. Have you ever heard of something called “combat effectiveness”? Look it up. The American rabble doesn’t show up that well.
As far as the worst butcher of the war: that’s John Bell Hood, for Franklin. Worst general. Probably Bragg. Grant had his talents but he was not some sort of “American Ulysses” as you patriots claim.
And on the subject of America, how’s your grand republic working out? I know, it must be painful to have the exceptional nation revealed as the degenerate toilet it is.
And I stand by everything I said about your precious Sam. Sieges and starvation. Yeah, that’s some maneuvering there. Now go watch Hannity.
Really interesting, as always.
When this war ends (hopefully soon and with good terms for Russia), we will need some books stating the truth (why and how it began, how it was fought) so we do not forget it.
Hope there are some writers willing to face the challenge (wink, wink XD)
My prediction is that you are never going to see units from the country formerly known as the United States. And the reason is they know they are a paper tiger that will get beat like a step-child.
AINO kit is crap. It is expensive crap but crap nonetheless. An Abrams is just a 70 ton paper weight without a huge logistics tail.
Another prediction. You will never see the F35 in combat because 1) it is crap and 2) the cowards that run AINO dont want to risk losing their shitty wunderwaffen texhnology.
This great essay details the degree to which AINO (America In Name Only) forces will never be able to fight a near peer. AINO can barely feed its high heel wearing soldierS.
I dont think the Empire of Lies know how much it is hated around the world It appears the hatred of the pedophile friendly Empire id Lies is reconciling Shia and Sunni Muslims. Your average over-fed, over-stimulated, under-educated, just wanna grill AINO idiot has no idea what the Sunni-ShiA schism is much less even being able to grasp the ramifications of the end of the schism.
Egypt and Syria are reconciling. AINO doesnt have allies but vassal. And it looks like the entirety of the world is uniting to maybe fight it.
Thanks for your meticulous research displayed in this post.
For the past year I have asked people to engage in a thought experiment where it was our military fighting the Ukrainians rather that the Russians. Most asked have a rather inflated view of our ability to establish no-fly zones on a whim. They have not contemplated that Ukraine's S-300 air defense system is far better than anything we have deployed on our own shores, and for that matter, anything we deploy elsewhere.
And when it comes to Russia's S-400 and the S-500 yet to come, forget about it!
It is legitimate to suspect such "bribes" were carried-out in Ukraine 2022 as well, but that one side outbid the other.
- Was Kiev supposed to be delivered as Bagdad was, with a short SMO in view as plan A?
- What was actually the role of once negociator Denys Kiryeyev?
Russian Spy or Ukrainian Hero? The Strange Death of Denys Kiryeyev
Hours before Russia first sent troops into Ukraine, Mr. Kiryeyev warned of Moscow’s plan to capture Kyiv. Days later, he was killed by security agents.
By Brett Forrest Jan. 18, 2023 11:29 am ET
WSJ: https://archive.is/SbEW8
Yeah but we successfully killed a half million Iraqi children. In the words of the immortal Madeline is Albright, now burning in hell for eternity, "We think it was worth it."
Beat that *record* Russia!
I remember listening to navy SEAL Jocko Willink talking about how in the battle of Ramati, on one night raid on a target, they blew the door and literally threw the Iraqi soldiers into the building.
And these were guys who were reluctant to have Iraqis around, because of their poor training...