₦airaland Forum

Badassniggga:
Russia will never nuke Ukraine as the situation doesn't even call for it. Americans keep singing on the nuke threat as if they can really do anything if Russia indeed nuked Ukraine. Ukraine will be thrown under the bus like trash 🗑️.

Moreso, Murica wants Russia to use the nuke in Ukraine so as to share the consequences and worldwide hate of using nukes on civilians together with Russia. I mean the whole world knows only US has ever nuked civilians in history which didn't quite go well with the rest of the world,she wants to share that hate with Russia and Russia ain't buying it.

The emboldened sound logical, because i see it as i dare you kind of thing, so they can demonize Russia like they've always done.

Sunshine34:
Ukrainian are good people. We seriously need their wheat. I hope you are coming to Nigeria.

Nigeria also need to learn their military doggedness.
Buhari and his Army are still fighting Boko boys and still no victory in sight. What a shame.

Buhari and who?
This one is still stuck in buhari's administration.😂🤣

WriterrNig:
⚡"We need to isolate Crimea from Russia," said Kurt Volker, former 🇺🇸 US State Department Special Representative for Ukraine.

"This can be done by interrupting ground logistics, for example, by hitting the 🇷🇺 Crimean bridge again. It is possible to disable the military base in Sevastopol. Ukraine can do it now. And work on the complete liberation of Crimea will take place some time later. The Crimean peninsula is very important for the future security of 🇺🇦 Ukraine in the Black Sea and the operation of Ukrainian ports. It is difficult to ensure it without control over Crimea," Volker said.

He believes that the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons is "extremely low" because "it will lead to an answer."

In turn, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said that 🇷🇺 "Russian imperialism must be defeated in Ukraine."

"There will be no peace and security in Europe until Putin finally loses in Ukraine," he said.

Nukes are not weapons we're supposed to joke with, but if time was reversible by man, i will personally want Ukraine to be nuked so that i can see this answer that many western politicians talk about.
Will the u.s risk losing New York, California and Washington for Ukraine?
Or will the UK risk losing London or France risk losing paris?
What about the Russians? will they risk losing Moscow and st Petersburg? The right question here is: Can Russia nuke Ukraine? Which i can bluntly say Yes to, if circumstances permit her to do so. (if the west gets directly involved in this war).
Para venture Ukraine got nuked today, the west will leave Ukraine to face her fate except they want the world to be in flames.

On the other hand, i see this as 'I dare you' kind of thing in other to demonize Russia.

Anyways these politicians to me are dèvils incarnate, they truly want the total destruction of Ukraine.

Hotice085:
You just don't have sense

You are not worth my time.

I asked you a question go back and read what you typed again.

Uprightness100:
The city of Kherson today - completely flooded. The demolition of the Nova Karhova dam is the most severe Russian attack on Ukrainian territory since the beginning of the war.

This news you posted has not been confirmed, no evidence to prove that either side committed this crime but you posted it.

Your credibility has for long be questioned, but you seem to amaze me by reporting speculations as credible information.

This is what i call disinformation.
PROPAGANDA.

Hotice085:
You that don't know anything at all, at all you are talking about military tactics
Mr Man do you know anything?

Just read what you typed again?

Ibime:
You mean that's part of Russia plan

Russia is weakest in that region and more fortified up North and have been fortified there since 2014

Russia flooded that area because they they are weak there and don't have tank advantage. Best way to slow tanks is with water and muddy grounds

Clearly, you know nothing about military tactics.

Akuruoulo:
With join a day old counter offensive , territories are falling already.
Something that took Russia months to capture.




Thought Russia destroyed all the Patriots and other western arms ?
What are ukrainians using?

The Russians have 5line of defensive positions.

The main defensive position begin at the third line of defense, so it is easy to breakthrough the first and second defensive line.

WriterrNig:
⚡️🇺🇸 American forces sent 45 truckloads of Syrian oil to their bases in 🇮🇶 Iraq.

Just like they always do.
Criminals who think they can police the world forever.

Your time is up.

Since Assad must go did not work, they resort to stealing and forceful occupation.

Shoodboi:
Russian Volunteer Corps that wear British uniforms, use American vehicles, and speak Polish. 🤡🤡🤡

Ironic 🤣😂

obedience4:
Seriously how do you expect the USA to wipe the total Taliban, it was never possible to simply wipe out a movement that deals with ideology as it focal point.
They will always people that will be sway to join.
Suppression Is the key, which terrorist group has been total destroyed.
The m23 rebels are still active In Mali even after the French dealt with them.
..
I get your points thou. But I don't agree with you

Wiping them out doesn't necessarily mean you'll kill every single one of them.

Thank god you made mentioned of suppression, You suppress them to the extent no one will openly admit to being called a Taliban. Today not only are they ruling Afghanistan, but world leaders recognize their rulership including the u.s.

Do you know that no individual or group will ever agree to be called a NAZÏ?. This is because of the suppressive power of the Soviet and it allies during WW2. That's a typical example of how you suppress an ideology.

It doesn't mean every Nazï was killed during WW2, but today no one wants to be called a Nazï because of what happened to them in the past.

obedience4:
In the military especially in military operations they are primary objective and secondary objectives.
Let's use the Korea war for example the USA led UN intervention in Korea was to drive the north koreans from the south, that was the major primary objective by a year the mission was done the north Koreans were remove from the south, then General MacArthur decided that it was feasible to take North Korea too, this thus drawing the Chinese into the war, the USA attacked the North Korea side to the extent the war spilled into china, by the 3 year the USA invasion of North Korea was a failure the Chinese drove them back to the extent they lost the North Korean territory they took and we're push back to the south side of Korea.
Are we going to say the USA objectives in Korea were not achieved because the Chinese defeated them and drove then back to the south.
The objective of the USA was to remove the Taliban which was achieved and the subsequent managing and transfer of security to the Afghans were the failure.

When making a reference, the reference should have similarities.

You still don't understand the goal of the u.s in Afghanistan, or maybe you're wasting my time.
The goal was to wipe-out the Talibans, that means: kill them.
And create a military force out of the Afghan people.
This failed miserably.
Top military analyst and generals around the world called it a failure, including those in the u.s, but am here on a faceless forum arguing with someone who can't accept the fact that his beloved and almighty America failed to win a war against a far inferior force.

I don't want any argument with you, because the next one will be: how the u.s won in Vietnam, outlining numerous and outrageous reasons why the Vietnamese war was a success to the u.s

Shoodboi:
Don't mind them. Many of them are just being emotional. To them, it is either you support the US or you're against the US. There is no middle ground. The moment you say anything that doesn't support the US, irrespective of whether the statement is neutral or supports Russia, they instantly term you a Russian supporter. This is the same thing the US does, and that's why Ukraine and Russia are at war.

The US didn't want Ukraine to be pro-Russia and they didn't want it to be neutral. Ukraine had to be pro-US and must join NATO. Russia won't take that, the same way the US won't take a pro-Russia Mexico or Canada or Panama or Cuba. By the time this is all over, we will tell them we said so. We told them.

That's the reality.

olugabbie:
US failed to crush the Taliban in Afghanistan. They only succeeded in using their enormous fire power to push them out of the capital and other major cities.

The Taliban never gave up. They kept on attacking and attacking till the were able to force the US out of their country. They kept the pressure on US troops for years.

That's the problem I'm having with obedience4.
Even a 3years old child will comprehend the fact that defeat is when your goals are not met.
Pushing them away is not elimination, infact what Russia is doing now in Ukraine regarding the denazification is a tactical example of what the u.s military should have done to the Talibans. Rather than bombarding them to change their tactics to guerilla warfare, the u.s military should have implement the strategy of a sit and wait predator, thereby letting the Talibans come after them in a form of a counteroffensive just like what the Ukrainians are about to do right now, before dealing a big blow to them.

WriterrNig:
⚡🇺🇦 Ukrainian sources are reporting that 6 Tu-95Ms strategic bombers have taken off from Olenya airfield in 🇷🇺 Russia. Missiles strikes against Ukraine is likely tonight.

Anytime strategic bombers are in the sky, I'd pray a silent prayer for innocent people to be saved, because these bombers carry hell along with them.

dvkot:
yea probably part of the USA so called Russia disinformation bs.. They are just like Nafo om twitter

You're right.

WriterrNig:
⚡🇺🇦 Ukraine is ready to launch a counteroffensive against Russia but fears large casualties due to 🇷🇺 Moscow's superior air power, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Saturday. "A large number of soldiers will die" if Kyiv is not given the weapons, he said.

Where's that guy that was arguing blindly with me?

An army with higher firepower will always have lesser casualties.

WriterrNig:
⚡️“For many in 🇺🇦 Ukraine, a full-scale 🇷🇺 Russian military invasion would feel like a liberation” — 🇺🇸 Time Magazine in 2014

😂🤣🤣🤣

Badassniggga:
lol visually confirmed by who? Where are the evidences of the confirmations? Who counted the equipment losses? With what did they use to count the equipments? . I hope you know no one takes that your link seriously?

A dutch link can never be taken seriously

dvkot:
it's a BIG SHAME to see any African support USA/Ukraine, but i think most of their supporters on NL are paid

That's true, i think they're been paid to do this because i still can't wrap my head around it.

Kingsnairaland:
I don't think they are dumb

Do you think it easy to accept that USA Ukraine military is incompetent

It suicidal to accept that Ukraine is losing with USA nato weapons

If western media report the truth most of them will commit suicide

It not easy that why you have to take it slow and steady untill they become used to defeat

And then they naturally do as their governments always do pack up and run

Just like they ran from Afghanistan and Vietnam.

So each day they wake up they see Ukraine is losing land and with time they become mentally defeated.

That's exactly how a typical American is, am shocked that my black brothers are behaving the same way.

obedience4:
What am saying is this, the USA invasion of Afghanistan was a military success, that later ended in failure due to a number of mistake.

The USA plan was to kick the Taliban out, then trained the local military and leave them with the ability to defend themsleves, the 2trillon dollars was mostly spent not on the war effort but to train and equip the Afghanistan national army, which later turn out to be waste of money and time..

In the end the war ended in failure For the USa,
That's not the basis of our agurement, what am saying is that the invasion was successful the Taliban was removed from power,something Soviet Union failed to do when they invaded, but the management of the war was what the USA failed and led to the loss of lives and resources.

If Putin has successfully remove zelenzky and took over keiv and the Ukrainian people switch to an insurgent style of war.
We could say the russain invasion was successful but could they be able to manage the asemeric insurgence that will later starts.

Yae

The problem i always have with you is this.
I asked you indirectly that: was the war the u.s fought in Afghan a failure or not? You initially answered by saying it was a failure but later resort to saying it's not, because the u.s drove the Talibans out and they came back with guerilla warfare. This is what i call wrong planning, wrong training, wrong tactics and a complete failure.
You know it is impossible to argue without facts, so hear this: The goal of the u.s in Afghanistan was to wipe-out the Talibans.
Guess what, the Talibans sent u.s soldiers running home like headless chickens.

Due to your love of comparison, you think the war the Soviet fought in Afghan was the same with the humiliating defeat the u.s suffered in Afghanistan.
Even though the Soviet war in Afghan was not a successful one, which I'll say because I'm a man who speaks the truth, there is a certain factor to consider.

The Soviet where fighting against the mujahideens which was supported with ammunitions and intel from the u.s, u.k, Germany, France, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, türkiye, Saudi Arabia and a host of arab nations.

Ironically, the same mujahideens they supported against the Soviet, alone with no support sent the u.s home in a more humiliating way masquerading as the Talibans.

Whatsoever is happening in Ukraine right now is military tactics 101.
The u.s military tactics have always been bombardment bombardment, until enemy is suppressed, this tactics ends up killing large numbers of civilian population. What the Russians are doing in Ukraine is not about killing zelensky, they're altering the doctrine of modern warfare.
Watch carefully and see what the Russians are doing, don't allow Hollywood and the u.s military to fool you into thinking that the only way to engage in warfare is the American way.

obedience4:
Am not surprised by your reply.
Wasn't expecting anything intelligent thou.

The USA deafeted the imperial Japanese empire in ww2, is the USA ruling the island of Japan.
The Soviet marched into Berlin Germany during Ww2 the Soviet has since dissolve into bits .and Germany which was divided into two has since be unificated
Are the Soviet rulling in Germany..

Like I said wasn't expecting anything intelligent

Why try sounding intelligent when you're not?.

So the goal of the u.s was to go to Afghanistan and stay there for 20year, spent more than 2trillion dollars just to replace the Talibans with the Talibans?

Be logical

Alamkir:
Why are u people such a big liar?
Prigozhin said he brought 50k soldiers to Bakhmut and lost 20% of them, which is 10k men. Please how did he lost 60k soldiers when his men is nt even up to 60k?
How can someone lose 60k men according to ur ratio: 7 dead Russian soldiers for every 1 Ukraine and still take over Bakhmut? Haba, do better now

What I've understood so far in this war is that every Ukraine supporter on nairaland that I've engage thus far can be classified as dumb.

A simple maths is like rocket science to them.

Shoodboi:
There is no way Russia would have higher losses than Ukraine. It is impossible. Ukraine has higher losses in terms of personnel and equipment losses. It was a few months ago that the lady that leads the EU revealed that Ukraine had suffered over 100k casualties. That was the moment Western media switched from claiming "Russia is losing" to "Russia is fighting a war of attrition and both sides are losing".

As you correctly stated, the rule says the attacking force needs 3x more troops than the defender, if both armies are equal. But the figure could be reduced if one side is more powerful. Russia is the more powerful force here. Ukraine has lost the bulk of its navy, armor, and all of its air force. It currently relies on "defensive" weapons like anti-tanks rockets and manpads to counter Russia's offensive weapons like tanks and aircraft.

At this point, Ukraine easily has over a million troops in the war. It was like 600k before the war but they heavily mobilized. The numbers soon gave it an edge over Russia's 150k troops, which forced Russia to mobilize another 300k. Those 300k are not fighting. They're only used in defensive and rear roles to erode whatever advantage Ukraine got/will get from the massive mobilization.

That said, casualties are based on one thing only, which is firepower. The more powerful side has more firepower and can attack from longer ranges. This results in lesser casualties for the powerful side and more casualties for the weaker side.

But this strength factor can be affected by one other thing, which is "Who is attacking?" Let us assume the stronger side has 1 casualty for every 10 on the weaker side. When the stronger side is attacking, its casualties can easily go up to 2 for every 10 soldiers killed on the weaker die. If the weaker side is attacking, its casualty can easily go up to 15 soldiers for every one killed on the stronger side.

Now, you will be wondering, how is Russia still in the war despite being outnumbered by Ukraine?

It is because Russia prevents Ukraine from using its large army to its advantage. If you look at maps from this war, you will notice that Russia isolates battlefields. When it attacks an area/city, It blocks the flanks (sides) and then enters from the middle. Think of it as Russia drawing a letter U around a city. Ukraine can only send in reinforcements and resupply the battlefield using the open gap at the top of the U.

That is hard for Ukraine as Russia monitors the roads leading to that open gap and uses long range missiles, kamikaze drones, aircraft, and artillery to destroy any Ukrainian resupplies and reinforcements its spots.

The weird thing is that the strongest Russian units are the ones responsible for blocking the flanks. They are rarely deployed into the city to do the actual fighting.

We saw this happen in Bakhmut where Russia used its powerful armored units and the elite VDV to cover the flanks while Wagner entered the city. The same happened in Mariupol where Russian armored units, Marines, and VDV units covered the flanks while the Chechens entered the city. It also happened in Luhansk where Russian Marines, VDV, and armor covered the flanks while the Luhansk People's Republic and Chechens and Russian infantry soldiers did the fighting. Even the elite 1 Tank Army, which is responsible for protecting Moscow, was deployed to cover the flanks in Luhansk.

Mind you, the Wagnerians, Chechens, and Russian infantry fighting inside the city were outnumbered but they didn't have to bother about being attacked from the flanks, so they were able to focus on the battle. They had had heavy firepower too - way more than what Ukraine has. At the same time, the Ukrainians in the city had to put the Russians in the flanks into consideration cos they're even more powerful than the ones they were fighting with inside the city.

So how can Ukraine counter this?

Interestingly, the only way Ukraine could have won or at least prevented its destruction in Mariupol, Luhansk, and recently, Bakhmut, was not to focus on attacking the Chechens, Wagner, and Russian units inside the city but to focus on attacking the powerful forces protecting the flanks.

If those powerful units fall, the ones inside the city (Wagner, Chechen, and the Russian motorized infantries) will retreat. This was why the Wagner commander was shouting and fighting with the Russian general staff weeks ago. It wasn't because he wasn't been supplied as he claimed. It was because the Russian general staff planned to, and later withdrew the VDV from the flanks and sent in motorized infantry units as replacements. Motorized infantry is no match for mechanized infantry or armor.

I doff my hat.
You've just done what i don't have the time to do, hence my initial agreement with him, because I've been busy all day and don't have the time to lecture him.

This is a clear detail of what's happening and what happened in bakhmut.

The only problem is these western slaves who will rather remain myopic and emotionally dysregulated than accept reality.

obedience4:
Now the Soviet Union ain't Russian, yet you guys didn't give Ukraine any credit for the Soviet Union achievement in ww2, now that the Soviet Union has lost in Afghanistan it so just happen that the Soviet Union ain't just Russia alone 😂😂😁😁

Back to the USA invasion of Afghanistan, first the objective of the USA led innervation was to Lil the Taliban out of power, something the USA Achieve in just 4 months, while Russian Military tried and failed woefully to remove the zelenzky government.

The USA plan was to train the Afghanistan national army the ANA and then they would take up the security of the Afghan state, is not to write rubbish on narialand, go check out the primary and secondary aims of the USA led innervation in Afghanistan,
But the Afghanistan men seems not prepared to save there country, there were multiple timeline set for the USA to leave Afghan but the USA leaders in the Pentagon kept shifting date because of the idequiences of the Afghan army.

Note the USA after dealing with the Taliban had to put up with a asemeric insurgent style of war with the Taliban, it was no longer a normal conventional warfare as we see in the Ukraine war.
No matter who you are when you don't know your enemy you are bound to take losses which the USA took.
Using the Boko Haram as a case study the insurgent wil never fight the Nigeria military on a conventional warfare, either they go with the hit and run tactics..

You can't compare the USA and the Soviet Union achievement in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union fought and lost a normal conventional warfare in Afghanistan.

Keep on deceiving yourself 🤣😂

I have just one question for you: who is ruling Afghanistan as of today?
If your answer is The Talibans then all you wrote was gibberish

[quote author=coke75 post=123545830][/quote]That shows i only keep conversation with intelligent people.

once i notice I'm talking to an unlettered person, i agree to what he or she says just to avoid arguments.

obedience4:
You forgot the Soviet Union, now mostly Russia once invaded the same Afghanistan and was wiped black and blue

Soviet union was not only made up of Russia alone.
Not forgetting the support the mujahideen got from the u.s, u.k, china, France and a host of arab nations.
Only Talibans sent u.s running home like headless chickens .

Make sure you know history.

coke75:
You didn't give me an example, you made up a fantasy in your head.
Nobody here knows how many troops were deployed in bakmut, you don't and I don't. What we know is is that Wagner took heavy losses taking very little territory in Bahkmut...
Prigozhin said he lost 20000 troops, only counting wagner soldiers, not including other russian troops. Add the wounded and they probably lost more than 60000 troops, just to take a tiny city.
We don't know how many ukrainians were deployed or KIA, but definitely not as many. There's no reason for the ukrainians to defend the city if they were lossing so many many troops, ukraine wouldn't have an army anymore if they were taking as many losses.

The reported K/D ratio early on was 7 to 1. 7 dead russians for every ukrainian. This probably got a little less favourable for ukr in later stages. Nobody can confirm those numbers but they seem realistic. The only value the city had for the ukrainians was that a ton of russians died trying to take it.

Yes Russian's died in large numbers, i think a million troops died trying to take a little city.

On the other hand Ukrainians are known immortals, so they don't die, only Russians do.

coke75:
1. You don't understand the 'theory'. Obviously it referes to a situation were both sides are roughly equal in strength and not if one side has tanks and the other sticks and stones. This is literally understood by every military on the planet. The general rule is that the attacking force needs to have 3x more soldiers and equipment.
2. As one would expect, russia has had significantly higher losses.

Visually confirmed losses of equipment from both sides:
Ukraine - 3464, of which: destroyed: 2258, damaged: 216, abandoned: 95, captured: 895
Russia - 10500, of which: destroyed: 6920, damaged: 353, abandoned: 404, captured: 2823
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

My friend, all you've written makes no sense in the military perspective.

Remind me of any battle in history where the attacker and defender have the same quality and quantity of troops and also with same firepower.
I'll give you an example which was recent and highly relatable:
The battle of bakhmut

At the initial stage of this war, the orchestra were outnumbered so authorities gave their boss the permission to recruit from prison.
When the recruitment from prison was halted, the orchestra were still largely outnumbered.

What made the orchestra suffer less casualties compared to AFU was because of the firepower of the orchestra, they fire 2-3times what the Ukrainians fire in a day, and not undermining the quality of the wagnarians.

So come up with a more logical approach to this question.

WrriterNig:
⚡Viktor Orban:

A counter-offensive would be a "bloody massacre" for 🇺🇦 Ukraine, it must be prevented. “Even a person like me, who has only a year and a half of military service, knows that the attacking side has three times more casualties than the defending side,” he said during a radio broadcast on Kossuth.

The 🇭🇺 Hungarian prime minister called on the parties to hold peace talks.

The theory of the attacking side having more casualties than the defending side is absolutely gibberish.
It all boils down to two objectives.
1. The quality of troops
2. Their firepower

If the attacker has well trained troops with a higher firepower, the defending force will surely suffer a higher casualty level, same goes for the the attacker if the defending force have well trained troops and a higher firepower.

This is the reason Russia has fewer casualties compared to the losses the Ukrainians have suffered.