Why is this war so slow? Russia waits for like 1 month to conquer a village. Ukraine does nothing other than send their soldiers to die for the village.
Why is this war so slow? Russia waits for like 1 month to conquer a village...
Because it is fake.
There's at least 600-800 miles of front and both sides have at least 700,000 men fielded in theater.
Another factor is munition attrition versus destruction potential. 13,000 missiles or drones hitting their targets would not even destroy a single large city like Kharkiv or Kyiv. You would need about 20-100 times that amount, which can only be facilitated by artillery in close proximity (within 10km).
Next is vehicle attrition in modern drone dominated and mine dominated warfare along a huge land front. All vehicles suffer ridiculous attrition rates within 40km of the front, literally 10% or less survivability for 6 months within this zone.
As a result, all movements are slow and monotonous because all vehicles will get blown up at some point in the front, everywhere is fucking mined or in range of drones, and conventional artillery and missiles focus only on targets of special interest.
Given Russia's shown attrition rate versus previously imagined production rates, Russia is clearly easily capable of continuing to push the front for at least 1 to 3 more years at the present rate. Ukraine is losing front even with all the aid and western production. Russia's main goal should be to capture the other 30% of the Donetsk oblast and push the front some tens of km farther north away from Crimea. It is also currently massing more troops along Sumy and Kharkiv, which would be insanely kino if it captures even one of those like it did Maruipol.
it's eastern europe
slowest place on earth
nothing happens here
both Ukraine and Russia are unwilling to fully mobilize.
everywhere on the front you have manpower parity. nobody can do any offensive whatsoever
The geography is flat fields, flat forests, flat wetlands, and big wide rivers.
Historically all war in this kind of theater involves massive front lines and massive logistics. Every single army that tried to blitz eastern Europe in huge fronts was nearly totally destroyed with 75-90% dead or captured.
And on another note, the only armies to successfully invade this region were all nomadic armies that never held cities or permanent settlements. They just hit each place and moved on until they became exhausted or absorbed into the local populations.
there was only one single "blitz" in eastern europe in history and that was rather successful (short term)
both Ukraine and Russia wish they had someone like Guderian and 850k armed forces for an offensive
Russia is taking the village because they are losing.
Ukraine is losing the village because they are winning.
The German blitz couldn't even capture the Caucasus oil fields or fully take the biggest cities. Operation barbarbossa was a tactical and strategic failure.
ofc they were a failure.
because that was the only time in history were and inferior army in both manpower and equipment started several offensives against superior defenders.
thats why no one in this war right now does anything.
not to forget that Ukraine and Russia have one single front right now while the mustache man had shenanigans all over the place from the Balkan to Africa and others.
which brings me back to my original statement
"both Ukraine and Russia wish they had someone like Guderian and 850k armed forces for an offensive"
You shills are so full of shit
Kursk failed because ukraine didnt mobalize enough
Kiev is full of troops they are just waiting for the right time to reveal thier power level!
Ukraine does nothing other than send their soldiers to die
You don't need to send soldiers to die anymore.
you seem confused, nobody said anything like this.
shizo moment?
The German military was superior to the USSR's both in theater and strategically at the start of Barbarossa. Napoleon's army was also superior to Russia's army and the same result occurred. Completely and totally bogged down by winter before the big cities.
It's not about the land, it's about killing hohols.
Because they make money off it. It's a strictly for-profit war. Nobody gives a fuck about the poor bastards that die.
on the first day of the offensive on june 22 1941, the armored and mechanized forces of the soviet union outnumberd the combined axis power by 5 to 1 and in airpower 2.5 to 1, see the standard wikipedia article of operation barbarossa (for example 3,350 tanks compared to 11,500)
nobody in this day and age would start an offensive with 35 armored vehicles against a position held by 115. this is, yet again, why nobody does anything in the Ukraine war
At the start of barbarossa the stats were different, the USSR literally had less tanks and less aircraft than the Germans, the USSR only had more soldiers and parity with artillery. The Soviet industrial complex picked up very fast on its own during barbarossa and much faster after the US joined (which was after barbarossa strategically failed). Both Napoleon and the barbarossa strategically failed and were doomed within a single growing season.
And in modern warfare, drones and mines kill all vehicles in the front. It doesn't matter how high tech your armor is, it gets destroyed within 6 months in the ukraine front or quietly pulled from the frontline.
it's turn-based war
they build army and send the meatwaves dying on dem minefields or droned
whoever runs of resources will win
They have to kill the ukrainians that they send to die first.
The German military was superior to the USSR's at the start of Barbarossa
another one of those "poor soviets" myth? lmao, the soviets had 24,000 modernized tanks vs 3,000 old light German "tanks", the soviets had 2,000 T-34s alone, KW-1A tanks impenetrable to any German antitank guns till 1942. The soviets had long range bombers, the Germans didn't. etc. so, soviets were materially well prepared, but fucked up strategically because Stalin thought he'd have time to attack first (was planning for July 1941), since Hitler was already in a war on one front.
The German military was literally superior at the start of barbarossa. It had massively more modern equipment across the board, and locally more troops, guns, tanks, and aircraft. The bulk of Soviet combat resources at the start of barbarossa were not in the main blitz path of the Germans. Even if you use the numbers at the end of barbarossa, the Germans were only outnumbered in tanks and aircraft and troops by 1.5-2 times at most. Barbarossa like Napoleon, failed within a single growing season and the situation turned into brutal attrition warfare for the next 3 years on a losing front.
the USSR literally had less tanks and less aircraft than the Germans
that is literally a lie. see
The Soviets had recorded at most ~10,600 tanks and ~7,000 "combat" aircraft (most of which were actually more like crop dusters). The Germans also had half a million more troops than the Soviets at the start of barbarossa. And of the roughly ~620,000 vehicles the Germans had, 66% of them were destroyed, abandoned, broke down, or otherwise incapacitated within 3 months.
everything you're saying is literally soviet lies, trying to justify abject failures in planning and execution by the top level leadership.
see Suvorov's book "Icebreaker", he has all the statistics from open sources, since Putin extended the ban on access to Soviet military archives for another 50 years.
No its literal facts. The German military was in almost every metric superior to the USSR's at the start of barbarossa. The Soviets never reached their goals for tanks until the end of the war. The exact same thing also happened with Napoleon, superior force in every way, totally destroyed and bogged down within 6 months, except he actually captured Mscow.
620,000 vehicles the Germans had, 66% of them were destroyed, abandoned, broke down, or otherwise incapacitated within 3 months.
it's a mystery then how the Germans encircled and destroyed more than 600,000 soviet troops in September 1941 at Kiev. The soviets took 91,000 Germans at Stalingrad.
No it's not a mystery. The German force was by far the more superior force and could mobilize more equipment and troops than the Soviets during barbarossa. What is not a mystery is how 66% of their vehicles were written off within 3 months, because this is historically what also happened to Napoleon, bogged down and broken supply lines then force attrition loss within 6 months. Again, even in the highest scenario for the USSR (which was not 20k tanks), the German force was only outnumbered 1.5 to 1 and the Soviets had the shittier equipment across the board.
Funny how you nafo troons cant keep up with your lies
cant mobilize
Kursk
Troop parity
Bullshit, Russians are volunteering and exceeding goals while ukraine is dragging men off the streets
eh not really the truth is they split up there armies way too much the army that went into the caucasus was actually a army detachment made up of a few divisions that were meant to be used in stalingrad but were split off to take the oil fields people also tend to forget that the actual massive battle happening at the time was in voronezh stalingrad was actually just a shithole that wasnt given priority for anything everything went to the other army groups when it came to manpower and material..
Also this is what shit looks like from east Germany to eastern Siberia.
Flat fields, flat forests, flat wetlands, and big wide rivers. For thousands of miles. This is why nomads typically dominated in this terrain.
No really. The German military was entirely superior to the Soviet military in barbarossa. At worst it was only disadvantaged 1.5 to 1 by the end of barbarossa in tanks, aircraft, and troops, but it actually had superior numbers in field in the beginning. And the equipment the Soviets were using were absolute dogshit compared to the German equipment. And Stalin was a retard and defended south of Pripyat marshes more than north, but this actually ended up keeping the Germans from ever reaching the Caucasus oil fields in time so it actually worked out.
the majority of vehicles were write offs due to wear and tear the majority of russia the germans took during the first few months was not very industrialized so it was just shitty dusty roads made during the days of the tsars and you had whole army columns driving day in day out in these conditions mind you this is before filters and shit were standardised and most panzers/trucks were not designed for such long distance treks alot of the distance they had to travel was the size of small countries
im not disagreeing with you the soviet army was dogshit for the most part but the southern sector was not given priority for anything you can find this in the german archives they were given absolutetly fuck all to take stalingrad and the caucasus so much so they had to rely on the romanians and italians to protect there flanks cause they simply didnt have enough men
The German force was by far the more superior force and could mobilize more equipment and troops than the Soviets during barbarossa
you continue to lie about that, I'm giving you sources that completely disprove your lies.
The USSR had almost 4 times more aircraft and tanks than Germany and its allies, having not only a quantitative but also a qualitative advantage in armaments.
Already in 1937, the Soviet Air Force had 8,139 combat aircraft in service - approximately the same number would be in service two years later in Germany (4,093), England (1,992) and the USA (2,473) combined. By October 1, 1939, the aircraft fleet of the Soviet Air Force had grown by one and a half times (to 12,677 aircraft) and now exceeded the total number of aircraft of all participants in the world war that had begun. In terms of the number of tanks (14,544 - and this does not include the obsolete T-27 and light amphibious T-37/38), the Red Army at the beginning of 1939 was exactly twice as large as the armies of Germany (3,419), France (3,286) and England (547) combined.
The 17 German tank divisions were armed with 3,266 tanks (and if - which would be completely logical - we subtract from the total number 146 unarmed "command tanks" and 152 combat training tankettes Pz-I with machine gun armament, then the Germans did not have even three thousand tanks). This "steel avalanche" was opposed in the first two weeks of the war by 20 Soviet mechanized corps, which had 12,379 tanks before the start of hostilities.
etc. book by Historian Mark Solonin, "June 22, or When did the Great Patriotic War begin?"
ru.wikipedia.org
There are multifold reasons why eastern Europe eats vehicles. Historically it was worse than today because of lack of infrastructure, but the core reason is actually the same.
Flat fields, flat forests, flat wetlands, and big wide rivers. For thousands of miles.
This means your force will never be able to secure this whole territory before it gets bogged down, and once bogged down, the local forces with industry behind the front lines, will begin to dominate. Additionally, this flat open terrain with difficult to cross rivers makes it very easy to sight and destroy enemy vehicles. This is also what happens in ukraine. Infra-red and night vision makes it all the easier now. You stand out like a sore thumb waiting to get droned, or you get mined before you even get to the rivers.
Russians are volunteering and exceeding goals
so victory in 3 months?
>Russians are volunteering
kek
As I said, in field the Germans had superiority in both numbers and equipment quality.
The highest actual number of "combat" aircraft the uSSR had in field at the start of barbarossa was literally 7-8k of which literally half were not what you would call contemporary military aircraft. And in regard to tanks, at most the USSR could only field 10-11k tanks by the end of barbarossa. The Germans also started out with more troops and more vehicles. The land and combat ate 2/3rds of all vehicles within 3 months and the Germans failed to capture Moscow or the Caucasus oil fields, they became over extended and met fiercer than expected resistance (wave attacks).
Depends if Russia goes all out and stops avoiding civillian casualties.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is literally kidnapping civilians to join the army.
I said, in field the Germans had superiority in both numbers and equipment quality.
you're literally saying lies without any sources, I'm giving you the sources that completely disprove your lies.
Funny how you NAFO faggots think lying on the internet is helping Kiev
A top Ukrainian official said Russia beat its 2024 recruitment goal and is still doing so in 2025.
That's after Moscow already raised its goal to 430,000 troops last year.
It comes as Russia has poured cash into sign-up bonuses and passed laws to recruit crime suspects.
The deputy chief of Ukraine's military intelligence said Russia is exceeding its recruitment targets, affirming Moscow's earlier claim of hiring over 440,000 soldiers in 2024.
no, you!
pidors are "volunteering"
Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to beat Russia. No amount of delusion is going to change that.
Russia is taking their sweet ass time though.
There are multiple sources repeating what I am saying. The wiki articles are often unclear and sometimes just wrong. The breakdown at the start of barbarossa looked something like this:
Germany:
3.4 million troops
4,500 tanks and AFVs (mostly high quality)
4,000 aircraft (mostly high quality)
USSR:
2.9-3.0 million troops
8,500-11,000 tanks (mixed quality)
7,000-8,000 aircraft (half of which were very low quality, thus only 3.5-4k quality aircraft)
Troops - Germany has the edge
Tanks - Germany has quality advantage, later is outnumbered at most 2 to 1
Aircraft - Germany has quality advantage, at most is outnumbered 2 to 1 (more like 1.5)
Vehicles - Germany has overwhelming advantage in quality and numbers.
And the Germans maintained numerical advantage in field until about December of 41 when the Soviet reinforcements began to arrive from further east bring the stats to at worst, 2 to 1 for Germany. The same thing happened to the Germans that happened to Napoleon. A superior force was completely destroyed and bogged down within one growing season.
Also depending on how you count tank or AFV the Germans technically could have had 6k tanks and AFVs. Meaning near parity to the USSR's 11k at most.
There are multiple sources repeating what I am saying.
and yet you haven't provided any
"mostly high quality", "mixed quality"
what does that even mean? your attempt at manipulating and lying is childish.
6k vs 11k
"near parity" - kek, sure. But if we count the bicyclists with guns it would even be superiority!
mixed quality
Half of the Soviet equipment was 20-40 years out of date in the field. The rest were acceptable for the time but still outperformed by western equipment.
and yet you haven't provided any
These fronts and war have been studied now for 80 years, there are multiple reliable sources repeating what I've been saying. For example, the USSR only fielded about ~10,600 tanks in barbarossa most of which near the end of the operation. And at most the USSR had no more than 5k additional tanks that were out of theater. Additionally the USSR bogged Germany down before US and major lend lease involvement.
1.8 to 1 at worst disadvantage is near parity. Anything less than a 2 to 1 is technically near parity. And remember the German equipment was massively superior to the Soviet equipment and could outrange, outflank, and outrun Soviet equipment. Eastern Europe will eat your military if you are attacking west to east.
Because neither side has the manpower or ability to force what they want, and both sides are full of corrupt slavs with leaders who pocket the money that should be going to weapons, food, and materials needed to win the war.
russias final warning
No army has the manpower to wage wars on these wide fronts anymore, not even china. Wester "experts" estimated that Russia would completely run out of missiles and drones 1-2 years ago, instead Russia has launched at least 13,000-14,000 drones and missiles into ukraine, of which if you counted actual missiles instead of drones Russia has launched more attack missiles than the US military has in inventory right now.
The thing is missiles don't do shit against such huge areas. A big city for example might have 1 million targets, and 13,000 missiles isn't going to do shit to it.
here
Oh, it's you, Ivan...
All according to (((plan)))
What's happening here?
Why is this war so slow?
Drones + artillery make offensive impossible. Armored vehicles cant escape the eye in the sky and anti-tank drones.
because the west keeps sending shit to ukraine, its literally the only thing keeping them afloat