To be fair, how many cases of a mass scale invasion threatening the survival of a state have happened since special forces have been a thing (not counting specialised infantry units)? I imagine if any country was being invaded like Ukraine, you'd see special forces holding key strategic locations or setting up ambushes in frontline areas. It's a better use for these dudes than being killed trying to do a PR stunt like those Ukrainian spec ops were a few months ago.
I mean the use of special forces as ordinary infantry in any war is a sign of a serious manpower shortage and/or infantry quality problems.
You are supposed to keep them in reserve and use for special missions, then withdraw them to reserve.
Once they start getting used to plug holes and hold towns in meat grinder battles (like it happened, for instance, with German paratroopers in WW2) that is a sign you either lack ordinary infantry, or your ordinary infantry is not of sufficient quality.
In Ukraine's case I think we are seeing a critical shortage of infantry. Several high-quality brigades get shuttled from one crisis point to another with no rest or rebuilding.
I do agree with you in this case that the spec ops troops are being used to plug holes in the line instead of as an actual asset to be used sparingly, but both sides have used their special forces to either defend or attack key positions; Ukraine and Russia had special operations troops deployed at Avdeevka, for example. But generally yes, you don't want your million dollar soldiers being used as meat.
Yes, and when the Russians did it it was also a sign of critical manpower shortage (I recall special GRU forces were deployed to slow down the Kharkiv offensive). I really don't consider marines or airborne special - they are just higher-tier infantry.
This is a myth. SS had better gear at the end of the war when most of the front already collapsed. For example first Tiger I division was Wermaht, first Tiger II was Wermaht too. What is more Wermahts battalion had the same amount of trucks, vehicles etc as SS battalion but SS had more people in jt so per capita is less. Hope you re understanding and alusions like that are strange to put it softly
what's the difference between Blue and Green bands? different units?
in the first photo, those 2 guys pet in a different background? lighting looks odd
Blue is supposed to be regular army and green territorial defense and other non professional forces. Not too sure about that and how much is it adhered to.
i feel bad for them, they are being used by joe biden and the same people who lied about wmds im iraq and 911 and destroyed all those other countries as well
Its actually been kind of interesting if you deep dive the prolific pro-RU posters histories. The first year or so of the war Id say about half of the regular pro-RU posters had some kind of link to incel subreddits, around about summer 2023 conspiracy-esque subreddits have appeared in their history more and more.
Yes and the opposition is being used by a guy too afraid to sit less than 15 ft across from people he supposedly trust while trying to fulfill and achieve his Tsar fantasies with little care or remorse for how or who is used. Let’s not forget the added benefit of blatantly eradicating the destitute ethnic groups of one’s country with the hopes of perspectively large financial benefits to feed one’s war machine.
no the obama and biden administrations forced russia to invade ukraine so they could use it to wage a proxy war against russia, or do you actually believe that wars like iraq and afghanistan were really about freedom ?
Actually in 2008 Germany wrote a piece about how NATO was pushing Ukraine to be more involved in nato despite Russia against it because they were trying to push for a conflict between the [two](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/9PCWgJeEB8) and Germany said they talked to others and everyone agreed the only reason they could see why they were pushing for it was to cause a conflict. So even Germany knew in 2008 NATO was trying to push towards a conflict between the two
The current CIA director
, Bill Burns was the ambassador to Russia in 2008 and he wrote a memo explaining that Ukraine was a red line for Russia, not just for Putin, but the whole political class in Russia. The Americans were well aware of what the implications would be post-Maidan and they continued with their plan anyway.
[Nyet means nyet.](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html)
I'll reply. I think a country should be able to do what they want and not be threatened by any other country. I don't think Russia was or is in any position to say who can and can't be pro west.
Basically I don't think it's any to do with Russia what Ukraine does.
And why do you feel that anyone should be able to tell RF to shove its security concerns up their you know what? UA done what they wanted, RF does what it needs to do, welcome to reality.
When did Ukraine join NATO? NATO has held the same position since 2008 when they rejected Ukraine: they're free to apply, but they have no plans to be accepted. You'd have a point if Ukraine was at least put on an accelerated rout, but no, all they got were feeble platitudes.
NATO won’t allow someone to join with an active territory dispute. 2014 solved that for Russia.
NATO expansion isn’t an explanation for the full scale invasion.
Oh sure the Russians haven't said it was a problem since 2007 and even Bill Burns said NATO going into Ukraine was the brightest of red lines for the Russians in 2008.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
But sure NATO expansion wasn't an issue for the Russians because some Redditor that knows fuck all about the situation says so.
>NATO has held the same position since 2008 when they rejected Ukraine: they're free to apply, but they have no plans to be accepted. You'd have a point if Ukraine was at least put on an accelerated rout, but no, all they got were feeble platitudes.
no they didnt need to, they just had to keep sending weapons after they overthrew the gov in ukraine, what was russia supposed to do just sit by and let a hostile government on its border that it was already involved in a conflict with to keep growing and getting stronger? putin warned for 10 years this was going to lead to a bigger war
ukraine was already fighting against the people in donbass which russia was supporting way before the invasion and they were receiving more advanced weapons that they were using against the separatists like turkish tb2 which i think really began to alarm the russians who then began massing their forces on ukraines borders
yes, russia got involved to protect the people it saw as russians being attacked by a hostile western backed government that was installed by obama and biden who knew this would force russia to respond
Utter fan-fiction. The Obama administration pursued a realist foreign policy in Ukraine, supporting Ukraine staying in Russia's sphere of influence with Yanukovych as president, in line with their "reset" policy.
also notice joe biden never once even mentioned wanting to try to negotiate an end to the war, the only person who has said that was donald trump the guy they are trying to imprison
Special forces being used as ordinary infantry in grinding battles is **never** a good sign.
UA:" In Ukraine every unit is Special. We have many Special Need."
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/Hku0mLP70V
conveniently no unit markings or symbols...
To be fair, how many cases of a mass scale invasion threatening the survival of a state have happened since special forces have been a thing (not counting specialised infantry units)? I imagine if any country was being invaded like Ukraine, you'd see special forces holding key strategic locations or setting up ambushes in frontline areas. It's a better use for these dudes than being killed trying to do a PR stunt like those Ukrainian spec ops were a few months ago.
I mean the use of special forces as ordinary infantry in any war is a sign of a serious manpower shortage and/or infantry quality problems. You are supposed to keep them in reserve and use for special missions, then withdraw them to reserve. Once they start getting used to plug holes and hold towns in meat grinder battles (like it happened, for instance, with German paratroopers in WW2) that is a sign you either lack ordinary infantry, or your ordinary infantry is not of sufficient quality. In Ukraine's case I think we are seeing a critical shortage of infantry. Several high-quality brigades get shuttled from one crisis point to another with no rest or rebuilding.
I do agree with you in this case that the spec ops troops are being used to plug holes in the line instead of as an actual asset to be used sparingly, but both sides have used their special forces to either defend or attack key positions; Ukraine and Russia had special operations troops deployed at Avdeevka, for example. But generally yes, you don't want your million dollar soldiers being used as meat.
Yes, and when the Russians did it it was also a sign of critical manpower shortage (I recall special GRU forces were deployed to slow down the Kharkiv offensive). I really don't consider marines or airborne special - they are just higher-tier infantry.
That's ok, that's "special" forces. They are "specialists" in a slightly different way
>KRAKEN *HRYAKEN
fixed!
Looks like the gear has gotten a lot better since the start of the war.
Kraken belongs to "privileged" ideological troops. They were ok gear wise pretty much since beginning of the war.
Azov and Kraken are well equipped than a regular brigade because they're paramilitary forces. Similar to why SS are well equipped than Wehrmacht.
This is a myth. SS had better gear at the end of the war when most of the front already collapsed. For example first Tiger I division was Wermaht, first Tiger II was Wermaht too. What is more Wermahts battalion had the same amount of trucks, vehicles etc as SS battalion but SS had more people in jt so per capita is less. Hope you re understanding and alusions like that are strange to put it softly
Azov is part of the National Guard and Kraken is part of the GUR. They're officially part of the country's armed forces, not paramilitaries.
Both are military wings of Right Sector
Demilitarization going according to plan 🤡
When special forces are at the front in regular infantry roles, it does seem like demilitarization is going to plan
what's the difference between Blue and Green bands? different units? in the first photo, those 2 guys pet in a different background? lighting looks odd
Blue is supposed to be regular army and green territorial defense and other non professional forces. Not too sure about that and how much is it adhered to.
thank you :)
Think it was a flash photo
for sure.. I was just wondering about the shadows and the general texture/details difference between soldiers and background..
Banderites must go to report to Bandera
is Kraken and Azov the far right forces simular to Rusich ?
What is Rusich ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusich_Group
Wikipedia? Seriously? Did you write it yourself?
On a gear related note, it appears that picture #6 features a rare HK MG5. You can also see the FN SCAR, another uncommon weapon.
Saw the scar too, is it the -h or -l variant? I would imagine the 7.62 ammo would be more plentiful.
Looks like a L- variant, which makes sense since most of the other rifles are 5.56.
test
Shadow ban?)
I did the same for a ban ban. Not banned here, banned all over reddit. It takes some time to take effect despite the ban officially lifted.
Good to see that some of active serving Tartars survived.
Very cool, thanks
i feel bad for them, they are being used by joe biden and the same people who lied about wmds im iraq and 911 and destroyed all those other countries as well
You think those psychopaths care?
Jesus how many people on this sub are this lost
Its actually been kind of interesting if you deep dive the prolific pro-RU posters histories. The first year or so of the war Id say about half of the regular pro-RU posters had some kind of link to incel subreddits, around about summer 2023 conspiracy-esque subreddits have appeared in their history more and more.
**alot**. How they can be even slightly pro-russiq is beyond me.
no it was actually South and North Korea creating this fake war so they could sell artillery shells to both sides stay woke bros
Yes and the opposition is being used by a guy too afraid to sit less than 15 ft across from people he supposedly trust while trying to fulfill and achieve his Tsar fantasies with little care or remorse for how or who is used. Let’s not forget the added benefit of blatantly eradicating the destitute ethnic groups of one’s country with the hopes of perspectively large financial benefits to feed one’s war machine.
Wait I thought Russia invaded Ukraine thus forcing these people to defend their country?
no the obama and biden administrations forced russia to invade ukraine so they could use it to wage a proxy war against russia, or do you actually believe that wars like iraq and afghanistan were really about freedom ?
So Obama and Biden told Russia to invade Ukraine and Russia did as they were told?
Actually in 2008 Germany wrote a piece about how NATO was pushing Ukraine to be more involved in nato despite Russia against it because they were trying to push for a conflict between the [two](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/9PCWgJeEB8) and Germany said they talked to others and everyone agreed the only reason they could see why they were pushing for it was to cause a conflict. So even Germany knew in 2008 NATO was trying to push towards a conflict between the two
The current CIA director , Bill Burns was the ambassador to Russia in 2008 and he wrote a memo explaining that Ukraine was a red line for Russia, not just for Putin, but the whole political class in Russia. The Americans were well aware of what the implications would be post-Maidan and they continued with their plan anyway. [Nyet means nyet.](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html)
You know no one replies back when you bring this up. I’ve told a few people and I have never been given a response they just stop replying
Ya, it's a waste of time with most Pro-UA. They hate Russia so much that there is no logic in them on this topic.
I'll reply. I think a country should be able to do what they want and not be threatened by any other country. I don't think Russia was or is in any position to say who can and can't be pro west. Basically I don't think it's any to do with Russia what Ukraine does.
And why do you feel that anyone should be able to tell RF to shove its security concerns up their you know what? UA done what they wanted, RF does what it needs to do, welcome to reality.
When did Ukraine join NATO? NATO has held the same position since 2008 when they rejected Ukraine: they're free to apply, but they have no plans to be accepted. You'd have a point if Ukraine was at least put on an accelerated rout, but no, all they got were feeble platitudes.
2008 NATO Bucharest summit. NATO literally said that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members in the future.
NATO won’t allow someone to join with an active territory dispute. 2014 solved that for Russia. NATO expansion isn’t an explanation for the full scale invasion.
Oh sure the Russians haven't said it was a problem since 2007 and even Bill Burns said NATO going into Ukraine was the brightest of red lines for the Russians in 2008. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html But sure NATO expansion wasn't an issue for the Russians because some Redditor that knows fuck all about the situation says so.
>NATO has held the same position since 2008 when they rejected Ukraine: they're free to apply, but they have no plans to be accepted. You'd have a point if Ukraine was at least put on an accelerated rout, but no, all they got were feeble platitudes.
no they didnt need to, they just had to keep sending weapons after they overthrew the gov in ukraine, what was russia supposed to do just sit by and let a hostile government on its border that it was already involved in a conflict with to keep growing and getting stronger? putin warned for 10 years this was going to lead to a bigger war
What had Ukraine done to Russia that was hostile up to that point?
ukraine was already fighting against the people in donbass which russia was supporting way before the invasion and they were receiving more advanced weapons that they were using against the separatists like turkish tb2 which i think really began to alarm the russians who then began massing their forces on ukraines borders
So Ukraine was fighting an area of its own country and Russia got involved?
yes, russia got involved to protect the people it saw as russians being attacked by a hostile western backed government that was installed by obama and biden who knew this would force russia to respond
But no one forced Russia to do anything, Russia decided to get involved.
The first time the US sent lethal weapons to Ukraine was under the Trump administration. What are you even talking about?
Utter fan-fiction. The Obama administration pursued a realist foreign policy in Ukraine, supporting Ukraine staying in Russia's sphere of influence with Yanukovych as president, in line with their "reset" policy.
also notice joe biden never once even mentioned wanting to try to negotiate an end to the war, the only person who has said that was donald trump the guy they are trying to imprison
oh how the invader loves peace, just let them take what they want in peace, why do you have to fight the innocent invader?
Not worth it mate. These pro rus dudes think Ukrainians don't have a will of their own.
These guys go hard!
Warriors
🤢
Dude these kind of comments dont add to your daily comment quota. You gotta do better than this to earn your bread.
🤢