Of course we did. We defeated them consistently for 22 years. There was no single year in that 22 years where we were ever losing. Contrast this with the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which went very poorly for Russia and included a number of battles Russia lost, and much higher attrition for Russia.
The United States left in Afghanistan not because it was militarily defeated, because it never was, but because liberal Democrats are dominated by doves, and agitated to cut and run for a long time, which Biden delivered on because it was early in his admin and he did as his paymasters commanded.
You can be a little shithead and be like "haaa haaa you loOOoooost!" like a taunting little schoolchild, but we both know that the US could have easily sat on the Taliban for another 20 years at minimal cost. There had been no US combat deaths in YEARS by 2021.
$21 billion worth (priced rather) of your military equipment.
Nope. They got more than they should, but it was nowhere near that much. Almost all the valuable stuff - the aircraft, flew out of country to places like Kazakstan. Total equipment spending over 20 years only came to $24 billion, and obviously most of that equipment was not still around by 2021 thanks to use, wear and tear, maintenance, etc and probably some losses/breakdowns.
Anyway Congress did an investigation, and the number was $7.12 billion in equipment remained. Of this, several billion in aircraft flew out of country as well, so not much was left for the Taliban.
Don't know about that. They were only able to hold because they had a solid defensive line. Once that had been broken, they'd be in huge trouble.
The Soviets greatly exaggerated the Line to downplay their bungling. The vast majority of the Mannerheim Line simply comprised trenches and other field fortifications. Bunkers along the line were mostly small and thinly spread out. The Finns had funds and resources for only 101 concrete bunkers; the equivalent length of the Maginot Line had 5,800 of these structures which were also linked by underground railway connections.
The war continued for another month after the line was overcome. Resistance was still fierce and only waned when they ran out of ammunition.
Right, but where are they taking the greatest number of losses? Bakhmut I assume.
Vuhledar. Total shitshow for Russia. Very heavy losses for no gains. Hundreds of tanks lost there alone. The reason for this is that the Russians are attacking across open terrain into high ground, and Ukrainian artillery is just massacring
them. On top of that, the area is heavily mined and Ukraine is firing US-supplied artillery mines behind the Russian armored columns so that if they try to retreat, they hit mines. Vuhledar has basically established that Russian armored doctrine is completely obsolete and incapable of maintaining an offensive under any observation and artillery fire. By contrast, in Bakhmut, attacks are entirely by small units of infantry.
You also predicted that the Kiev front would "collapse", which you now cite as somtehing you got right, when the Russians just staged an orderly withdrawal.
Don't lie about what I said. I said that Russia would have to flee or risk being cut off and encircled by the end of March. And what did Russia do? They fled before the end of March. I predicted it exactly, and the Russian high command could see what I saw and reacted appropriately.
As with Barbarossa, the goal is not to gain (or should not be) to gain territory
Barbarossa was 100% about gaining territory. The German army was advancing at breakneck speed the whole time to the point where outrunning their supply lines was a constant problem.
They can't pull back now, because all their escape routes can be hit by Russian artillery. I've seen video purporting to be an attempt for some vehicles to sneak out, and they got absolutely wrecked.
Yes they can. The exact same situation was true in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk and yet the defenders still had no problem getting out.
So the OSINT morons claimed 30 destroyed tanks, you turned it into "hundreds", turns out the number was very few.
You have a problem with relying on very dubious sources, and then believing them, without question, like that Italian actor you were convinced was a geopolitical and military expert.
No, idiot, the reason people know the losses in Vuhledar were heavy wasn't based on 1 video. Stop with your single russian propaganda cope video.
"People know"? Anyone objective who "knows" that? You get really upset when people don't immediately buy into war propaganda.
BTW, I wasn't even looking for that. I noticed that the name looked sort of similar to what you said (except that you used a degenerated peasant dialect), and of course, the real story is very different from the one Americans are force-feeding us.
Hundreds of ARMORED VEHICLES, not all "tanks" since you want to be pedantic.
Pretty big difference. If Russia is bragging about producing 1500 tanks in ONE YEAR, losing 1/5 of their annual production in a year is pretty bad. But since you're trying to cope yourself into an imperial victory, you want to believe it.
This is the EU, ordinary people have zero power. Not that they're doing anything more than giving the socially desirable answer from regime POV.
Contrast this with the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which went very poorly for Russia and included a number of battles Russia lost, and much higher attrition for Russia.
Let's compare. Russia stayed 9 years, and the government it installed lasted for 3 more years. That's more than 3 years more than the negative 3 weeks that your government lasted after you left.
You can be a little shithead and be like "haaa haaa you loOOoooost!" like a taunting little schoolchild,
When was the last war you won?
but we both know that the US could have easily sat on the Taliban for another 20 years at minimal cost. There had been no US combat deaths in YEARS by 2021.
Then you should have done that. Although you are very lucky that you pulled out, because I'm sure the top priority for Putin would have been sending in masses of weapons and equipment to the Taliban to retaliate against what you are doing.
Nope. They got more than they should, but it was nowhere near that much
Nowhere near that much? This was the claim made by pro-Biden/regime "fact-checkers" who "fact-checked" claims that it was 81 billion.
Anyway Congress did an investigation
"Corrupt, lying bastards said a thing"
The war continued for another month after the line was overcome. Resistance was still fierce and only waned when they ran out of ammunition.
Doesn't make sense, but I don't know enough to contradict you.
Hundreds of tanks lost there alone.
If one took the claims of losses by the Americans and their vassals at face value, Russia has already lost more tanks than during the whole of World War II.
Don't lie about what I said. I said that Russia would have to flee or risk being cut off and encircled by the end of March. And what did Russia do? They fled before the end of March. I predicted it exactly, and the Russian high command could see what I saw and reacted appropriately.
It's a year ago. How do you make that a 'lie', because I'm not framing it in the way you want?
Barbarossa was 100% about gaining territory. The German army was advancing at breakneck speed the whole time to the point where outrunning their supply lines was a constant problem.
The objective of Barbarossa was primarily the destruction of the Red Army. Which makes sense, because Hitler learned from Napoleon.
Yes they can. The exact same situation was true in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk and yet the defenders still had no problem getting out.
We'll see about that. You do engage in a lot of wishful thinking.
And yet they do.
Of course we did. We defeated them consistently for 22 years. There was no single year in that 22 years where we were ever losing. Contrast this with the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which went very poorly for Russia and included a number of battles Russia lost, and much higher attrition for Russia.
The United States left in Afghanistan not because it was militarily defeated, because it never was, but because liberal Democrats are dominated by doves, and agitated to cut and run for a long time, which Biden delivered on because it was early in his admin and he did as his paymasters commanded.
You can be a little shithead and be like "haaa haaa you loOOoooost!" like a taunting little schoolchild, but we both know that the US could have easily sat on the Taliban for another 20 years at minimal cost. There had been no US combat deaths in YEARS by 2021.
Nope. They got more than they should, but it was nowhere near that much. Almost all the valuable stuff - the aircraft, flew out of country to places like Kazakstan. Total equipment spending over 20 years only came to $24 billion, and obviously most of that equipment was not still around by 2021 thanks to use, wear and tear, maintenance, etc and probably some losses/breakdowns.
Anyway Congress did an investigation, and the number was $7.12 billion in equipment remained. Of this, several billion in aircraft flew out of country as well, so not much was left for the Taliban.
The Soviets greatly exaggerated the Line to downplay their bungling. The vast majority of the Mannerheim Line simply comprised trenches and other field fortifications. Bunkers along the line were mostly small and thinly spread out. The Finns had funds and resources for only 101 concrete bunkers; the equivalent length of the Maginot Line had 5,800 of these structures which were also linked by underground railway connections.
The war continued for another month after the line was overcome. Resistance was still fierce and only waned when they ran out of ammunition.
Vuhledar. Total shitshow for Russia. Very heavy losses for no gains. Hundreds of tanks lost there alone. The reason for this is that the Russians are attacking across open terrain into high ground, and Ukrainian artillery is just massacring them. On top of that, the area is heavily mined and Ukraine is firing US-supplied artillery mines behind the Russian armored columns so that if they try to retreat, they hit mines. Vuhledar has basically established that Russian armored doctrine is completely obsolete and incapable of maintaining an offensive under any observation and artillery fire. By contrast, in Bakhmut, attacks are entirely by small units of infantry.
Don't lie about what I said. I said that Russia would have to flee or risk being cut off and encircled by the end of March. And what did Russia do? They fled before the end of March. I predicted it exactly, and the Russian high command could see what I saw and reacted appropriately.
Barbarossa was 100% about gaining territory. The German army was advancing at breakneck speed the whole time to the point where outrunning their supply lines was a constant problem.
Yes they can. The exact same situation was true in Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk and yet the defenders still had no problem getting out.
You're talking about this, right? https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1623826157224222722
So the OSINT morons claimed 30 destroyed tanks, you turned it into "hundreds", turns out the number was very few.
You have a problem with relying on very dubious sources, and then believing them, without question, like that Italian actor you were convinced was a geopolitical and military expert.
No, idiot, the reason people know the losses in Vuhledar were heavy wasn't based on 1 video. Stop with your single russian propaganda cope video.
Hundreds of ARMORED VEHICLES, not all "tanks" since you want to be pedantic.
"People know"? Anyone objective who "knows" that? You get really upset when people don't immediately buy into war propaganda.
BTW, I wasn't even looking for that. I noticed that the name looked sort of similar to what you said (except that you used a degenerated peasant dialect), and of course, the real story is very different from the one Americans are force-feeding us.
Pretty big difference. If Russia is bragging about producing 1500 tanks in ONE YEAR, losing 1/5 of their annual production in a year is pretty bad. But since you're trying to cope yourself into an imperial victory, you want to believe it.
This is the EU, ordinary people have zero power. Not that they're doing anything more than giving the socially desirable answer from regime POV.
Let's compare. Russia stayed 9 years, and the government it installed lasted for 3 more years. That's more than 3 years more than the negative 3 weeks that your government lasted after you left.
When was the last war you won?
Then you should have done that. Although you are very lucky that you pulled out, because I'm sure the top priority for Putin would have been sending in masses of weapons and equipment to the Taliban to retaliate against what you are doing.
Nowhere near that much? This was the claim made by pro-Biden/regime "fact-checkers" who "fact-checked" claims that it was 81 billion.
"Corrupt, lying bastards said a thing"
Doesn't make sense, but I don't know enough to contradict you.
If one took the claims of losses by the Americans and their vassals at face value, Russia has already lost more tanks than during the whole of World War II.
It's a year ago. How do you make that a 'lie', because I'm not framing it in the way you want?
The objective of Barbarossa was primarily the destruction of the Red Army. Which makes sense, because Hitler learned from Napoleon.
We'll see about that. You do engage in a lot of wishful thinking.