>

Much of that is itself exaggerated; the Soviets took such heavy losses in the early war more because they were unable to manoeuvre the army to avoid German encirclements rather than because they were throwing men at the problem.
Instances where they did do this would be things like the Kotluban offensives which were carried out to delay the German advance on Stalingrad - but a lot of offensives characterised the same way were planned out, but simply unsuccessful (e.g. Operation Mars).
18 days to the 'anniversary'. >

A single day operation that became a single week operation that became a single year operation... >

I want a divorce! >

The UN is the therapist but is unsuprisingly useless. >

Listen therapy requires that neither of the parties start unjustifiable wars of agression against their neighbors. The UN just happens to be a therapist that has the goal of doing just that. >

Also Russia has veto power on the security council.... >

Russia should never have inherited USSR's seat. >

They inherited USSR's nuclear arsenal so that's part of it. >

Preventing Global Thermonuclear War is what the U.N. and the Security Council actually does. Anything else you see them do is just a side quest. >

Funny how a member of the security council is frequently threatening nuclear war. >

And men's lives wasted again. >

Many are just boys >

Yeah Feb 24 is days away. The knucleheads in the kremlin wanna try it again >

We should have given Ukraine A-10s last year to give them time to train, just in case Russia tries the 40km convoy strategy again... >

A-10s can eat a lot of shit and keep flying.  Surface to air missiles, however, exceed those limits.  A-10s are only useful against asymmetric opponents who cannot shoot you down.
Which is why Ukraine isn't asking for them.  They're interested in faster aircraft, drones, tanks, IFVs, SAM batteries, and artillery.
If Ukraine can't use it, there's no reason to waste their time by sending it. >


A-10s can eat a lot of shit and keep flying.  Surface to air missiles, however, exceed those limits.  A-10s are only useful against asymmetric opponents who cannot shoot you down.

A-10's are also the deadliest active duty airframe in the US military. More A-10 pilots have died in crashes than any other airframe since the Vietnam war ended(and F-4 phantom pilot deaths during the Vietnam war doesn't far exceed the A-10 pilot death count.).
Also expensive as fuck. The wing and cockpit upgrade package they're going through right now costs more than a new F-35 delivered.  
It's not something you'd want flying against a wall of Strela-2 manpads. >

The military has been trying to get rid of it as well. 
The problem is it is a morale/constituent issue. A-10 is easily identifiable. The engineering story sounds badass. Service members can pick the engine out in a loud environment and the enemy can as well. Nothing that has been investigated since has been deemed ready to replace the A-10 >

NGL, I think they should just modernize the AC130.  As cool as the A10 is, the AC130 has always been cooler in my mind.
Give it some kind of active defense system (like a Trophy APS but for aircraft), higher altitude, some kind of low grade stealth characteristics.
Somewhere out there was a team of engineers who said "okay, but what if we just put a bunch of really big guns sideways on a plane and fly around in circles?".  That blows my mind lol.
Mostly talking out of my ass.  But it would be cool as shit. >

That's what they do. They send these recruits/bodies in for a frontal assault and then try to flank with trained soldiers. What a barbaric waste of human life. >

Soviets had a doctrine of fixed battle, lock an opponent down, pin them with arty and encircle and destroy. Someone described as Bypass Breach Win BBW. Many post soviet states use this strategy, Ukraine is attempting to try and do manuver warfare w newer western tech since that is what the West's main doctrine is. >

Ukraine also has a strategy of putting more “expendable” troops at the front, in places like Bakhmut. Basically, they’re outnumbered 9:1 in number of artillery guns by the Russians. When an area is saturated by artillery fire, some casualties are inevitable, regardless of how well trained your troops are. Ukraine’s armed forces doesn’t want to (and can’t afford to) waste their NATO-trained and professional forces manning the trenches under constant fire, so instead they have lesser trained troops like the Territorial Defense guards and their conscripts do it and take the brunt of enemy assaults, and keep the professionals in the rear as a mobile reserve for counter attacks or to stop breakthroughs. 
The realities of war unfortunately force some harsh choices sometimes. >

Not sure where else to ask this, but you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about Ukraine’s strategy. 
Early in the war, we heard news stories that Ukrainian Civvies were either drafted or signed up in droves to defend their homeland. Since then, I haven’t heard much else about their recruiting efforts. 
Is Ukraine’s military recruiting pipeline still reliant heavily on civilian volunteers, or have they also conscripted/drafted personnel in similar ways to Russia? These policies are hugely unpopular in Russia and portrayed as such in the media, but I haven’t heard any similar stories regarding Ukraine. 
Any idea how Ukraine is doing in staffing their military overall? They’re a smaller country than Russia with a smaller population, so I figured as this becomes a war of attrition Ukraine would have to resort to similar tactics to Russia to find soldiers. 
But also given that they’re the ones being invaded, I’d bet a good portion of able bodied men would have fled the country, leaving them at a disadvantage as this war drags on and losses mount. >

Ukraine is still using conscripts.
In recent news, they’re currently proposing a Law 8271, Ukraine’s version of the “No Step Back” order, which allows “harsh” punishments for unauthorized retreats, desertions, or disobedience, indicating there’s some worry about conscript morale on the battlefield. The news articles somewhat euphemize the language, but it’s implied that unauthorized battlefield retreat or desertion might be punished Soviet-style, whereas it’s currently a fineable or jailable offense.
There’s also some recent indications that Ukrainian embassies are reaching out to their refugee population to ask men to return back home to join the armed forces.
I haven’t heard of any anti-conscription discontent in Ukraine, but I’ve seen Ukrainian vloggers on YouTube express dissatisfaction with aspects of how it was implemented. Basically how the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy ends up sending trained pilots, artillerymen, and tankers into infantry units without regard that their skill sets might actually be more useful in other areas. >


I’ve seen Ukrainian vloggers on YouTube express dissatisfaction with aspects of how it was implemented. Basically how the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy ends up sending trained pilots, artillerymen, and tankers into infantry units without regard that their skill sets might actually be more useful in other areas.

Link, please? >

Operation meat shield begins. >

What a fucked up perspective to have of a country defending themselves from a dictatorship.