https://reddit.com/link/1feylan/video/jbnncdp9ncod1/player

There are lots of talks on whether or not the US will lift the ban on long ranged weapons for Ukraine to use in Russia. If this is the case, what would happen?

In February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, the force involved was less than 200K troops. Some say as little as 170K troops. Iam not an expert on military at all. However I would not even consider invasion of Ukraine with anything less than 1 million personnel. Preferably 1.2-1.3 million. In 2003 when coalition invaded Iraq it was nearly 600K total invasion force. Iraq at the time had only 27 million people total, divided by religion (shia and sunni) and by ethnicities, (kurds and arabs) Iraq also is a much smaller country with a lot less evenly distributed population with not much of the cover like forests of Ukraine. Also with all due respect to my muslim brothers, you cannot compare a population of Iraq in 2003 and population of Ukraine in 2022 in terms of average iq and ability to learn. Also simply put, Ukrainians are a lot more technically savvy people in general than 20 year ago Iraqis. Plus population of Kiev controlled territories in 2021 was approximately 36-37 million people. According to these inputs I would assume that Russia needed at least 1 million troops to successfully invade and capture Ukraine, especially Kiev and Kharkiv. Preferably 1.3 million.

Question: Why they invaded such a large country with such a small force? What were they thinking? What was the point and purpose of this stupidity?

What art the odds of something like the C-RAM or CIWS being scaled down to be used to defend chunks of the front line from drone attacks? I understand that right Now they’re pretty large but shouldn’t it be possible to downscale them to where they’re small enough to help protect a dug in infantry unit?

Been addicted to GOT lately and when I was watching Stannis's rowboats and men getting FUCKED by arrows being rained upon, couldn't someone have invented a rowboat with a covering on top to stop things like that from happening? Dead serious.

I used to watch this YouTube channel called Raptor News. But they got hacked so often and I need timely and credible updates

Now Russian students study using a new map

As the war has gone on I have seen some shifts that seem to stray fairly significantly from previous wars, and I was wondering in what ways it has changed military doctrine.

The first thing that is probably quite obvious is drone warfare. Obviously, we have seen drones used in combat for some time now, but from my understanding, the use of cheap civilian drones just dropping small ordinance seems to be a new phenomenon.

The second thing I have noticed especially from Russia, is a big shift regarding armored infantry. The development of turtle tanks and cope cages, as well as a general shift towards smaller vehicles and assault units seems to indicate one or both of two things. First off, Russia is running out of armor. That seems very evident given the T-64s that have been spotted. Second thing though, it almost seems as if they are being rendered obsolete for offensive operation thanks to Drones and systems like the Javelin.

Those are just the things I have observed as someone who only moderately pays attention to the war, so I would love to know if there are any other big shifts, or if I got something wrong with what I have seen.

I recently saw this on the news, and i have no idea. Is it referring to the public or military? Or am i just stupid or this is really just too complicated? Is it politics related?

Lots of explosions, drone attacks, cruise missile attacks, and apparent airstrikes on apparent supply lines that are leading to Kursk

I understand not every group wants independence but surely there are some that do. Chechnya itself fought for independence twice in the 90s. Plus Chechen soldiers are even helping Ukraine. Seems like the perfect opportunity to break free since Russian forces are focused on Ukraine

If a unit takes POWs but instead of removing them from the front lines disperses them among the troops, maybe something like 1 POW per squad, would that be illegal POW treatment? It might make the apposing units rethink tactics but would add an extra job to do for the POW keeping squad. And obviously adds risk aswell.

Which is worse?

Should the victorious countries deal with Russia appropriately after the war to warn other authoritarian countries not to use force to change the status quo of regional peace?

Ukraine is likely to win, so Russia should be dealt with in the following ways after the war to prevent Russia from starting another war, compensate Ukraine for its losses, promote justice and warn war-mongers. Do you agree?

1. Return all Ukrainian territories and transfer the Kursk Oblast to Ukrainian custody

2. Compensate Ukraine for all losses. If it cannot repay, then mortgage Russian oil and gas fields to Ukrainian creditors.

3. Hand Putin and others over to Ukraine for trial as war criminals, and appoint personnel from the victorious country to organize a provisional Russian government.

4. Disband the Russian army and only retain the police and basic border defense, just like Panama after the Panama War

5. Dismantle Russia, just like the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the First World War, to prevent Russia from trying to invade other countries in the future

But on the other hand, there are still some hidden worries that need to be rectified after the war:

1. Will there be a civil war during the dismantling of Russia in the first place, or when Russia is broken up again, as was the case in former Yugoslavia?

2. If a civil war breaks out in Russia, will it involve the interests of other countries and become a battlefield for multinational intervention?

The above should be done with caution to ensure regional stability, right?