>

Yes, yes they(you?) have...
gonna do wonders for morale, and everyone knows that having severely injured comrades to look after and carry around massively increases a units combat effectiveness >

Isn't this just another miserable Russian War? It feels like all of thier wars are like that, a large number of deaths in depressing circumstances, they never had good enough tech to match the west and just threw a ton of numbers in thier wars. >


erable Russian War? It feels like all of thier wars are like that, a large number of deaths in depressing circumstances, they never had good enough tech to match the west and just threw a

Sounds like Enemy at the Gates was more accurate than some people want to admit - and shows what is still the pinnacle of modern Russian tactics. >

God, no. Enemy at the Gates was extremely inaccurate in almost every aspect. Ww2 historians loathe the movie for a reason.
The blocking detachments, low ammo/rifles, human waves in 1943 was largely all bullshit (blocking detachments in Stalingrad were used as regular combat units, the Russians were outnumbered and needed fighters not political cops)
By Stalingrad the soviets actually had good battle doctrine and skills. They weren't the messy red army of 1941. Post war and post soviet union it absolutely decayed due to corruption and financial woes. >

My point is that the Russian army today is nothing like the 1943 red army >

true - seems like they were much more organized back then :) >

They're being sent back because they are expected to die for Putin. This is no longer a war, it's become a mass sacrificial ritual. >

Just like in WW2 - throwing millions of men into the meat grinder to try and defeat the Nazis. >

Minus the existential threat to their home and lives. It's a totally voluntary and pointless sacrifice this time around. >

Minus American-UK lend-lease and an enemy fighting a western front. >

I have a feeling that if it weren’t for the USA in WWII, Russia would not exist right now. >

Indeed. Certainly not if Patton had his way. >

What did he want? >

Patton wanted to push on through Germany and directly attack the Russian forces to drive them out of Eastern Europe.
He also proposed arming and mobilizing the German prisoners the US had taken up to that point  to aid in that >

Churchill was a strong advocate for this too. They were prolly right. >

That would've been a huge waste of lives for the allied powers...
Patton and Churchill had their places, but they were happy to sacrifice millions for their own glory.
Going to war with the Soviets would've been the dumbest shit ever. >

Russia doesn't care about their men, especially the mobilized. Those guys were forced to go invade a neighbor. It's regrettable there weren't mass protests inside Russia over that. >


They need to be isolated and contained for the good of the world.

I feel this way as well - no one will be safe unless they are defanged and contained. >

I had no idea the Russians are actually they way they are until this war. >

Eastern Europe has been telling everyone for the past 30 years.