All i see is excuses and more excuses for Georgia doing badly. Instead of recognizing Russian army capabilities ,they resort to tons
of excuses ,when in reality Georgia air defenses ,
where all provided by NATO.logistics ,training and tactics
You guys simply talk some random fairy tales while I have already explained that those things absolutly didn't matter or exist. Most of AA was of Soviet origin btw and not provided by NATO but Ukraine. Logistics was not provided by NATO, what kind of BS is that supposed to be ? are you talking about those US aircraft transporting soaps and humanitarian aid ? even if so, that was not during the war. Just in case you say "those humanitarian aid were in reality hundreds of Abrams tanks".
Let me tell you ,that one of the things that totally blinded Georgian air defenses were Russian electronic Countermeasures....
According to Russian pilots they were very impressed with the performance of SU-34 in Georgia and worked as it was intended.
it's good to see that Russians stop claiming that only old Su-24/25 was involved. There was quite some heavy air presense despite partialy succesful AA defense. Pretty much all of Georgia's strategicaly valuable radar stations, comm centers and other military infrastructure was hit or destroyed by the Russian airforce. Half of the aircraft lost were due to friendly fire. So Georgian AA domination is a myth, as painfuly hard as the Russian side tries to claim the opposite. Soviet Buk shot down an old Tu-22 and that was because the pilot reportedly made the decision to fly significantly below usual operational height. Also those Buk systems were manned by Ukrainians. So not even that was something Georgian. it's like trying to desperately search for any kind of evidences of total Russian military superiority in the world in a small conflict that had the opposing side pretty much defeat itself by it's own incompetence and lacking warfare capabilities. The weakest military in the entire region.
Sure, today I can easily say that the Russian army has improved itself over those 5 years, that most shortcomings were eliminated and everyone on the planet should think twice before engaging in a war with you. But taking 888 as an example for Russian military superiority in that period is like the same with US bragging how they defeated Talib military in the first week in 2001.
Also Iskander missiles according with Russia helped in a big way to Rout Georgians forces..
Half of those missiles didn't even reach their target destination. There even some pictures.
Without all respect dude ,I do not understand how you were expecting to win
Nobody except Saakashvili did on this planet. This war shouldn't have happened in first place.
Georgia losing to Russia easily should be no surprise
Of course it was not, that's what I am trying to explain here, but some people stick to their pathethic propaganda BS like if they didn't knew any better. Maybe they don't. That's why they should also listen to the ones who know better about their own state than they themselves do about others.
magnumcromagnon wrote:"The Russian military has never proven itself against a worthy opponent" lmao is he serious?!?! It's like he never heard of the Russian military victories over Hitler and the fascist axis of WW2, Napoleon, the Central Axis of WW1, the Ottoman Empire, or that the Russian military successfully held off the British, French and Ottoman Empire simultaneously in the Crimean War, and handed defeats towards the U.S. military in proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. If the Russian military hasn't proven itself in war, than no other countries military deserves to be considered "proven".
Really ? you guys playing the dumb ones on purpose ? It was more than just obvious that I was referring to the more recent engagements in history, not WW1-2, Russian Empire or Kievan Rus .... why don't you go back to stone age ?
You want it repeated what I said ?? this is what I said:
So far the Russian army hasn't really proven itself
and this is what you claim I have said:
The Russian military has never proven itself against a worthy opponent
Still wanna play the dumb one ? this is so pathetic and tells so many things ....
Besides that I have studied Napoleonic Wars, so I don't need someone teaching me anything about it. Thank you.
Ok, stop with that proxy war nonsense. Who is the delusioned one here ? US had North Korea overrun in no time when the North was invading the South but the Chinese beat them back when they suddenly attacked out of nowhere, and if that was a total loss all of Korea would have been overrun by Chinese, but it ended in a stalemate because not even with such great numbers the Chinese were able to get further than the DMZ because of US air superiority. Get your damn facts straight.
I am not disqualifying Russian military achievments of the past. In fact there were quite some remarkable victories. Yet I will obviously not approve any wars like 1921 between Russians and Georgians. So get back to topic please ?
You try to rephrase and twist everything I say like there were only idiots here. I neither claim total NATO superiority but you guys can't swallow there is also no total Russian superiority. Bite me.
I didn't claim US has fought against worthy opponents the last years or decades but I just pointed out that Russia didn't and proxy wars don't prove a shit to me. Everyone can arm and support a side. Even Germany would be able to win a proxy war if it was only about arming, supplying and supporting. I am solely referring to the real deal. So stop talking nonsense and make yourself look silly as if you didn't understand what I am saying. I really want to talk to grown people damnit.