Lots of interesting info from Ryan, especially about the hazing.
Russians are barbarians, that's how they can abuse their own soldiers. This gives them the mindset to go out and bomb a children's hospital that is filled with sick kids and cancer kids and kill the doctors and nurses caring for them. In the US the "hazing" is to instill unit camaraderie and brotherhood, rather than the Russian's sadistic bullying of other soldiers in their unit which helps turn them into war criminals.
Exactly. When I did basic training you could spot the guys who played pranks (shave one eyebrow off a guy too tired to wake up), vs. The sociopaths who used the opportunity to hurt others (blanket party beating the victim after he fell asleep by throwing a wool blanket and hitting with bats). When everyone is a sociopath you get Russian military. Sexual degradation, genital injuries, suffocation torture, anal penetration with destructive objects, etc.
Hi Ryan, not sure if you read the comments but the part about Desert Storm I think is a bit of a dangerous myth that the US leverages off to forestall any self-analysis. For a few reasons;
- Iraq did have a lot of air defences, but they were predominantly orientated towards Iran/Israel and around the cities. There was not many that were providing front line cover by comparison
- Had no strategic SAMs, and no SAMs that could target beyond 40km. By contrast the the US had weapons that could target the whole of Iraq so there were no safe havens to sortie from. If we are assuming we're talking about a peer adversary like China or russia, they will have the depth to station critical assets out of reach and long range integrated AD which might be overcome, but you will be taking a massive amount of attrition
- Iraq had no real capacity to strike at the airfields that the fighters sortied from, allowing for absolute minimum disruption. If we are referring to a conflict with russia, European airbase dispersion and hardening is an utter joke (with the exception of Finland and Sweden) and fighters like F-35s need to have a substantial airbase infrastructure that cannot be easily dispersed
- Analysts such as Justin Bronk and Jack Watling have spoken at length about what future SEAD/DEAD missions will be up against and the idea of "we'll just airpower our way into fortifications because air superiority is assumed" is insane
regarding just bulldozing the trenches, an earlier video you talked about was about how the russian army failed in the Kyiv axis was because this was the first war that modern ATGMs are used; yet bulldozers are going to be the breaching tools along with MCLC? modern ATGMs are at the very least going to make that infinitely more costly than the example you are using
I do love your substack and rely on it often for refuting misinformation, but there is this tendency when it is brought up about the possibility of not having air superiority to go "just look at Desert Storm" and not interrogate any further because the alternative is hard to contemplate
Additionally I think the allies air defence of Ukraine segment is a bit disingenuous; for example Poland were warned against shooting down missiles in Ukraine for fears of escalation which is apparently more dire than letting the missile hit something and killing people. So while it's a question of geography, that point is rendered completely moot if they don't give the order to shoot it down anyway
You're well informed so I know you would have seen that statement re Poland but it's absence here because it reflects badly on the US I think is incredibly bad form
Lots of interesting info from Ryan, especially about the hazing.
Russians are barbarians, that's how they can abuse their own soldiers. This gives them the mindset to go out and bomb a children's hospital that is filled with sick kids and cancer kids and kill the doctors and nurses caring for them. In the US the "hazing" is to instill unit camaraderie and brotherhood, rather than the Russian's sadistic bullying of other soldiers in their unit which helps turn them into war criminals.
Exactly. When I did basic training you could spot the guys who played pranks (shave one eyebrow off a guy too tired to wake up), vs. The sociopaths who used the opportunity to hurt others (blanket party beating the victim after he fell asleep by throwing a wool blanket and hitting with bats). When everyone is a sociopath you get Russian military. Sexual degradation, genital injuries, suffocation torture, anal penetration with destructive objects, etc.
What constitutes hazing vs a harmless prank? I am not from the military but the runarounds thing sounds pretty funny.
Hi Ryan, not sure if you read the comments but the part about Desert Storm I think is a bit of a dangerous myth that the US leverages off to forestall any self-analysis. For a few reasons;
- Iraq did have a lot of air defences, but they were predominantly orientated towards Iran/Israel and around the cities. There was not many that were providing front line cover by comparison
- Had no strategic SAMs, and no SAMs that could target beyond 40km. By contrast the the US had weapons that could target the whole of Iraq so there were no safe havens to sortie from. If we are assuming we're talking about a peer adversary like China or russia, they will have the depth to station critical assets out of reach and long range integrated AD which might be overcome, but you will be taking a massive amount of attrition
source regarding the above just for reference: https://balloonstodrones.com/2022/10/19/looking-back-at-iraqi-air-defences-during-operation-desert-storm/
- Iraq had no real capacity to strike at the airfields that the fighters sortied from, allowing for absolute minimum disruption. If we are referring to a conflict with russia, European airbase dispersion and hardening is an utter joke (with the exception of Finland and Sweden) and fighters like F-35s need to have a substantial airbase infrastructure that cannot be easily dispersed
- Analysts such as Justin Bronk and Jack Watling have spoken at length about what future SEAD/DEAD missions will be up against and the idea of "we'll just airpower our way into fortifications because air superiority is assumed" is insane
regarding just bulldozing the trenches, an earlier video you talked about was about how the russian army failed in the Kyiv axis was because this was the first war that modern ATGMs are used; yet bulldozers are going to be the breaching tools along with MCLC? modern ATGMs are at the very least going to make that infinitely more costly than the example you are using
I do love your substack and rely on it often for refuting misinformation, but there is this tendency when it is brought up about the possibility of not having air superiority to go "just look at Desert Storm" and not interrogate any further because the alternative is hard to contemplate
Additionally I think the allies air defence of Ukraine segment is a bit disingenuous; for example Poland were warned against shooting down missiles in Ukraine for fears of escalation which is apparently more dire than letting the missile hit something and killing people. So while it's a question of geography, that point is rendered completely moot if they don't give the order to shoot it down anyway
You're well informed so I know you would have seen that statement re Poland but it's absence here because it reflects badly on the US I think is incredibly bad form